9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of any other law. N/N. 9/2009-S.T. and amended N/N. 15/2009-S.T. have been only issued to operationalize the exemption/ immunity available to SEZ unit under Sec. 26(1)(e) of the SEZ Act, 2005 and cannot bar the refund claim to the Appellant. The refund of service tax sought by Appellant cannot be rejected on the ground that the services were wholly consumed in SEZ and the Appellants are eligible for the refund. Some of the claim amount was rejected on the ground of excess claim in case of some invoices and that some of the invoices are not in Appellant's name or minor discrepancy. In such circumstances it is fit to remand the case back to the adjudicating authority to grant refund where the invoices were not in name of Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es received by them in their Unit for the period July' 2009 to September' 2009 on 2502.2010. They filed another refund claim for ₹ 29,87,613/- for service received by them during the period April'09 to June' 09 on 31.12.2009. They were issued show cause notices proposing to reject the claim on the ground that meeting of approval committee was held on 18.09.2009 of approval of services and the same was communicated to Appellant on 05.10.2009. Therefore the refund claim filed by the Appellant for the period 01.07.2009 to 30.09.2009 under the provisions of Notifications supra were not covered under the letter of approval of services as the Appellant had filed refund claim for the services utilized by them prior to approva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 2005 any goods or services exported out of or imported into or procured from Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) by unit in the SEZ or the developer of the SEZ shall be exempt from payment of taxes, duties or cesses under all enactments specified in the Schedule, subject to terms and conditions specified. He also submits that in terms of section 26 the unit in SEZ is exempt from payment of service tax under chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 on any tax-able senfce provided to such unit. Similarly there is exemption from payment of customs duties and excise duties levied on goods brought into SEZ. That in terms of Rule 26 and 27 of SEZ Rules, 2006 the services required by the developer are also exempted. He submits that the Notification 9/2009 - ST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any other law. We are therefore of the view that Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. and amended Notification No. 15/2009-S.T. have been only issued to operationalize the exemption/ immunity available to SEZ unit under Sec. 26(1)(e) of the SEZ Act, 2005 and cannot bar the refund claim to the Appellant. Our views are also based upon the Tribunal order in case of TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD. 2013 (29) S.T.R. 393 (Tri. - Mumbai) the Tribunal held as under 2. Coming to the next question, whether in respect of the services which were wholly consumed and which were fully exempt from payment of duty, whether the appellants can be granted refund under Notification No. 9/2009-S. T., dated 3-3 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en the same cannot be denied on the ground that the claim was made under Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. In this case, there is no dispute that the services were provided in relation to the authorized operations of the appellant within the SEZ. From the records it is seen that the appellant has filed the refund claim within the time period provided for in Section 11B and the appellant has borne the incidence of taxation. Further in case of ZYDUS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. 2015 (39) S.T.R. 657 (Tri. - Ahmd.) the Tribunal held as under 6. We also noticed that the Tribunal in the case of Intas Pharma Ltd. (supra) held that under Sections 7 and 26 of the SEZ Act, 2005, the taxable service provided to developer or unit to carry out authorized o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le service provider, inadvertently. Considered in the light of this analysis, the substituted provisions, of clause/ sub-paragraph 'c' of Notification No. 15/2009 cannot be inferred to have imposed any disability on the recipient of services consumed wholly within the SEZ, from seeking refund of Service Tax remitted on such transactions, by the providers of such services. 12. Therefore, the rejection of the appellant's claim by the adjudicating authority and affirmation of such rejection by the Commissioner (Appeals), to the extent ₹ 56, 650/-, in relation to Architect, Interior Decorators and Consulting Engineer services provided by M/S. Venkataramanan Associates, is unsustainable and is so declared. The order impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
