9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the specified service is paid. The service tax was paid after the business support service, as received by the appellant, was categorized as specified service. Since, it was exclusively for authorized operations, the appellant was otherwise entitled for ab initio exemption but for the service to be specified later than the period during which it was received. Since the liability under reverse charge mechanism was discharged only after approval, the period during which the service was rendered is not relevant for claiming the benefit of this Notification. There is no lacuna on part of the appellant while claiming the refund except for a procedural lapse. It has been settled law that substantive benefit as that of tax exemption irr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Heard Shri Yash Dadda, ld. Counsel for the appellant and Shri P. Juneja, ld. D.R. for the Department at length. 3. It is submitted on behalf of the appellant that the services rendered by the appellant were actually business support service instead of business auxiliary service. The same has also been acknowledged by original authorities. It is further submitted that business support service is one of the specified services received by SEZ unit for its authorized operation w.e.f. 9 July, 2014. It is submitted that since the tax qua the aforesaid service was paid by the appellant after 9 July, 2014, that they have rightly filed the refund under Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay of refund of service tax paid on the specified services received by the SEZ unit or the developer and used for the authorized operations, provided that such specified services are exclusively used for the authorized operations. Further perusal of this notification makes it clear that in such circumstances, the person liable to pay service tax has two options, that is, either not to pay Service Tax ab initio, if the conditions as mentioned in sub clause (3) (i) (ii) of the said Notification are fulfilled or he may claim the refund of service tax on the specified services that are not exclusively used for the authorized operations. 7. It is an apparent fact that the services received by the appellant are exclusively for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod during which it was received. Since the liability under reverse charge mechanism was discharged only after approval, I am of the firm opinion that the period during which the service was rendered is not relevant for claiming the benefit of this Notification. The relevant event for the purpose is payment of tax which is post the impugned service being approved/specified. I draw this support from the case law of the Wardha Power Co. (supra) as relied upon by the appellant wherein, it has been clarified that the only requirement of para 3 of the impugned Notification is the payment of service tax and the date of rendering of services is absolutely immaterial. In another decision of Intas Pharma Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax (Ah ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund claim and it has been obtained subsequently. In the present case, the impugned service of business support was got approved by the Department itself vide their letter dated 9 July, 2016. 10. Following the said decisions of the co-ordinate Benches, I hold that there is no lacuna on part of the appellant while claiming the refund except for a procedural lapse. It has been settled law that substantive benefit as that of tax exemption irrespective by way of refund cannot be denied merely due to the procedural lapse. Resultantly, the order under challenge, which otherwise has decided the issue against the appellant with only one line finding is hereby stands set aside. Appeal stands allowed. [Dictated and pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
