9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1463X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kes it further clear that the list of specified services which are rendered in relation to the authorized operation has granted this specific certificate and therefore, the approval cannot be questioned by the Revenue since the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise is also a member of the Approval Committee. The Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. [2012 (8) TMI 500 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] has held that Once the Approval Committee has given the nexus and the justification, rejection by the lower authorities of the refund claims of the service tax paid on various services on this ground is bad in law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal Nos.: ST/40919,40920 & 40921/2014 - Final Order No. 42936-42938/2018 - Dated:- 23-10-2018 - Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Ms. Vigneshwari, Advocate for the Appellant Shri. B. Balamurugan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appellant is a SEZ unit approved by the Development Commissioner vide Letter of Approval ( LoA for short) No. 8/1/2007/CHEYYAR SEZ dated 14.09.2007. The appellant is also registered under Service Tax Legislation and it is a matter o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8,445/- 38,445/- 10. Management Consultant Service 515/- 515/- 11. Technical Testing and Analysis Service 3,718/- 3,718/- TOTAL 12,26,445/- 10,51,545/- 2.2 The reason given by the adjudicating authority for rejecting the refund claim is that the operations such as sales, marketing, HRD, etc., were not included in the authorized operations. The assessee thereafter approached the first appellate authority who vide common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 27 to 29/2014 (M-III) dated 10.02.2014 upheld the Orders-in-Original thereby rejecting the appeal of the appellant. The first appellate authority has rejected the appeal inter alia on the grounds that the services ought to have been used in the authorized operations; the only authorized operation in the instant case was the manufacture of footwear and its sub-assemblies; that it was clear to him that export was not an authorized operations , but only a condition for allowing the authorized operation of manufacture of footw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dment dated 08.07.2009 to include the additional items of manufacture to the following effect : Manufacture of footwear including leather sports shoes, synthetic sports shoes, textile sports shoes, including partly processed footwear and sub assemblies and components of footwear 7. The UAC thereafter issued list of specified services, as approved by the Committee vide communication dated 30.06.2010 and the above list of specified services are annexed at Annexures 1 and 2. 8. Apparently, the services that are provided by the appellant in the case on hand find place in the list of specified services approved by the UAC. Therefore, the position is that the appellant having manufactured footwear, etc., is certainly not for self-consumption and therefore, the same are required to be sold/marketed and thus the reasons given by the adjudicating authority are illogical. 9. The Approval Committee has issued the LoA and the same is issued by the Development Commissioner, Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce after examining the nexus and therefore, the Revenue cannot sit over the judgement of the certificate. The certificate of approv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the taxable services specified in Clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 which are provided in relation to the authorised operations in a SEZ and received by a developer or units of a SEZ, whether or not the said taxable services are provided inside the SEZ, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. The refund procedure given below for operationalising the exemption applies to services which are procured from outside in respect of which the service tax liability has to be discharged first and the refund claim subsequently. In the case of services which are wholly consumed within the SEZ, there is no necessity to discharge the service tax liability ab initio. That does not mean that in a case where service tax liability has been discharged, the appellant is not eligible or not entitled for refund of the service tax paid under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. If the appellant is eligible for refund under Section 11B, then 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
