9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 481X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ription in the invoices raised by them - Held that: - the findings of the lower authorities that the description of the services is not acceptable seems to be incorrect as from the invoices it is clear that the services rendered is indicated by the service provider as support services of business or commerce - refund allowed. The appellant is an SEZ unit is not disputed and the receipt of the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of refund claim of ₹ 2,52,036/- claimed by the appellant. 4. Appellant claimed the refund of the amount as being service tax paid by them under the Head Business Support Services in respect of services received in the SEZ Unit. They claimed the benefit of Notification No. 40/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. The said refund claim was rejected by the lower authorities on two grounds: (i) that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iterates the findings of the lower authorities and submits that the description mentioned in the invoices is not of any services rendered but seems to be supply of xerox machines and printers. 6. On a careful consideration of the submissions made and perusal of the documents on which CENVAT credit was availed by the appellant, I find that such documents/invoices raised by the service provider a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... find that Notification No 40/2012 ST dated 20.06.2012 categorically comes in two parts and is for the service provider as well as the service recipient. If the service recipient is a SEZ Unit, he should pay service tax to the service provider and claim the refund of the amount. In the case in hand the fact that the appellant is an SEZ unit is not disputed and the receipt of the services is also n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
