9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 258X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals are taken up for disposal. 2. Briefly, the facts of the present case are that the appellants are registered with the Service Tax Department for providing various taxable output services under the categories Information Technology Software Services, Business Auxiliary Services, Business Support Services etc. to their principal abroad. They are registered as a SEZ unit under SEZ Scheme and are primarily engaged in exporting software development services. Appellants have filed two refund claims for refund of service tax amount paid on the specified services said to have been used for authorized operations in the SEZ under Notification No.12/2013-ST dt. 01/07/2013. Thereafter two show-cause notices were issued to the appellant vide which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imed / excess credit claimed because of calculation error / tax refund claimed but no tax was charged or paid for in the invoice. f. Date of payment for the input services is not available in the bank statement. g. Input service is cleaning whereas Facility Management or Disbursement is mentioned in the invoices. h. Service tax codes are not available on the invoices. In some cases, service tax registration number mentioned in the invoices do not belong to the service provider. i. Claims of Rs. 12,400/-, Rs. 12,354/- and Rs. 11,045/- claimed as maintenance and Repair Service whereas these are for supply of electricity, which is not in the approved Unit Approval Committee list. j. Invoice No.918711 dt. 27/11/2014 for Rs. 36,982/- n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upport of this submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. CCE, Nagpur Vs. Ballarpur Industries Ltd. [2007(215) ELT 489 (SC)] ii. CCE Vs. Shanmugananda Soapnut Works [2008(231) ELT 25 (SC)] iii. CC Vs. Toyota Engineering India Ltd. [2006(201) ELT 513 (SC)] iv. Rajkamal Lakhichand Vs. CCE, Aurangabad [2010(255) ELT 357 (Bom.)] v. Jayaswal Travels Vs. CCE [2008(12) STR 379 (Tri. Del.)] vi. CST Ahmedabad Vs. Poonam Grover Associates [2008-TIOL- 1482-CESTAT-AHM] 4.2. He further submitted that rejecting the refund claims on a ground which is not there in the show-cause notice violates the principles of natural justice as the appellant was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself on the ground on which the refund ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed services. In my view this cannot be a reason for rejection of refund claim as it is an avowed policy of the Govt. of India that SEZ unit should not be burdened with any taxes in order to make them competitive". 4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that it is always the intention of the Government to exempt SEZ units and SEZ Act was enacted with an objective to provide for establishment and development and management of the SEZ for promoting of exports. In order to fulfil this objective, chapter VI of the SEZ Act titled as "Special Fiscal provisions for Special Economic Zones" which gives several exemptions, drawbacks and concessions to every developer and SEZ unit vide Sections 26 to 30. These exemptions are from Customs, Central Exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the show-cause notices were issued on two grounds viz. certain input services are not covered in the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of CENVAT Credit Rules and hence not eligible and secondly non-submission of documents required to process the claims. Further I find that Order-in-Original as well as impugned order, both have rejected the refund claims on other grounds which are not taken in the show-cause notices and therefore they have travelled beyond the showcause notices which is not legally permissible in view of various decisions cited supra by the appellant. Further I find that the impugned order also violates the principles of natural justice because the appellant has not been given the reasonable opportunity to def ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the period April 2015 to September 2015 and once he has reversed the CENVAT credit without utilization, it tantamounts to not taking credit in view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant and the benefit of exemption would be admissible on reversal of CENVAT credit. 6.3. One of the grounds for rejection of the refund claims was that the date of the payment of service tax could not be ascertained as such transactions are not in the bank statement. In order to prove that payment was made through the banking transaction, the appellant has also furnished certificate of the Chartered Accountant as well as the bank statements wherein it is clearly established that during the relevant period, the payments were made by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
