9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 588X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized operations - Further, in this case, it is found that the appellant has subsequently obtained the approval from the Unit Approval Committee of the SEZ and the said certificate is placed on record but the Commissioner (A) has held that the said approval was obtained from the competent authority on 25.10.2011 and therefore, after the approval, he has allowed the refund and prior to that he has rejected the same. Further, in view of the settled legal position by various decisions relied upon by the appellant, condition of approval from UAC is not a mandatory requirement as per SEZ Act vide Section 51 of the SEZ Act which has an overriding effect over the provisions of any other law. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that rejection of the refund is contrary to the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the refund Notification is silent on the situation as to classification of Service Tax, considering the nature of Service Tax rendered and usage to carry out the authorized operation of the appellant. As far as refund of ₹ 911 claimed under BAS is concerned, the amount being small, the appellant did not press for the same; as far as rejection of the refund with regard to the other input service of renting of immovable property is concerned, the Commissioner (A) has partly allowed the refund for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant being SEZ is entitled to refund of Service Tax paid on input services used for authorized operations. Further, I find that as per Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013, the only requirement is that the appellant is required to file the list of approved services which have been used by them for authorized operations. Further, in this case, I find that the appellant has subsequently obtained the approval from the Unit Approval Committee of the SEZ and the said certificate is placed on record but the Commissioner (A) has held that the said approval was obtained from the competent authority on 25.10.2011 and there ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
