9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Z unit and as per Section 26 read with Rule 31 of SEZ Rules 2006 along with Section 51 of SEZ Act, the SEZ Act has overriding impact over other laws and SEZ units are exempt from payment of service tax for any service which is used for their authorized operations. Rejection of refund claim to the extent of ₹ 17,723/- paid under Reverse Charge Mechanism - Held that:- Rejection is wrong because the appellant in all has paid service tax amounting to ₹ 43,012/- and out of the total amount of ₹ 43,012/-, a sum of ₹ 25,190/- was granted to the appellant and the balance of ₹ 17,723/- which was paid through the same challan was rejected. - ST/21543 - 21546/2017-SM - Final Order No. 20219 - 20222/2019 - Dated:- 28- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is also a registered SEZ unit under the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) scheme for providing the IT enabled services. For rendering the above services, the appellant had received and used various input services on which service tax was paid. The appellant had filed refund claims, seeking refund of service tax paid on the specified input services used for the services exported by them during the impugned period under Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 1.7.2013. The jurisdictional Deputy/Assistant Commissioner, after following the due process of law, sanctioned portion of the refund claims and rejected the balance amount. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A), who also allowed the refund partial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019 (1) TMI 180-CESTAT-Bangalore Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCT, Pune: 2018 (9) TMI 258-CESTAT-Bangalore. ONGC Mangalore Petrochemicals Ltd. vs. CCE: 2019 (2) TMI 588 CESTAT-Bangalore. Barclays Global Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2018 (6) TMI 1080-CESTAT-Mumbai 4.2 She also submitted that in appellant s own case cited supra, this Bench of the Tribunal has held that intention of SEZ is to provide exemption from payment of service tax of all services which have been used in their authorized operations and that the SEZ Act has an overriding effect over all other laws. Further, in the case of Photon Infotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore: 2017 (12) TMI 1028-CESTAT-Bang., this Trib ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies and perusal of the record, I find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by this Tribunal in appellant s own case cited supra. Besides, this Tribunal has consistently held that the benefit under the SEZ Act shall have an overriding effect as long as the input services are consumed within the SEZ and refund has to be sanctioned in favour of the assessee. Further, I find that in the appellant s own case for the previous period cited supra, this Tribunal in para 5 and 5.1 has held as under: 5. After considering the submission of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant is a SEZ unit and as per Section 26 read with Rule 31 of SEZ Rules 2006 along with Section 51 of SEZ Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es from the UAC of SEZ which is a mandatory condition as per the Commissioner (Appeals). In reply to this argument, the learned counsel submitted that in view of the settled legal position by various decisions relied upon by him, condition in respect of approval from UAC is not a mandatory requirement as the SEZ Act vide Section 51 of SEZ Act will have overriding effect over the provisions of any other law. Therefore, keeping in view the intention of the Government in enacting the SEZ Act and giving special fiscal ST/20508/2018-SM 6 concessions to SEZs, I am of the considered opinion that this is only a procedural and is not a mandatory condition as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). Further the decisions relied upon by the appellant clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
