9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 759X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST (LTU), MUMBAI [ 2012 (8) TMI 500 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] , it was held that services provided to SEZ or a unit in the SEZ is deemed as export as per the provisions of Section 2((m)(ii) of the SEZ Act, 2005 and as per Rule 31 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, the assessee is entitled for exemption from payment of service tax on the services which are used or provided to a unit in SEZ. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/21962 & 21963/2018-SM - Final Order No. 20404-20405/2019 - Dated:- 9-5-2019 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Jayaram Hiregange, Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Gopa Kumar, AR Fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1,98,600/- ST/21963/2018 October 2016 to June 2017 ₹ 2,17,574/- 3. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the adjudicating authority has rejected the claim on the ground that the services are not approved by the Unit Approval Committee (UAC) without verifying the usage of the services. He further submitted that the procedure under Notification No.12/2013-ST is essen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the only ground on which refund has been rejected is that the impugned services have not been approved by the UAC of the SEZ which is a mandatory condition under Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 1.3.2017. Further, I find that both the authorities have not considered the usage of the input services procured by the appellant during the refund period. Further, I find that the original authority should have verified the usage and the nexus of the impugned services with the authorized operations. Further, I find that in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. cited supra, it was held that services provided to SEZ or a unit in the SEZ is deemed as export as per the provisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.: 2012-TIOL-1034-CESTAT-MUM. 6.1 Further in the case of Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, this Tribunal in an identical matter has held that refund is admissible even though the services are not listed in the approved list as long as there is no dispute on usage of the said services for the authorized operations. Further, CESTAT has held that non-inclusion in the approved list is only a procedural lapse. The said finding of the Tribunal is recorded in para 6.1 which is as under: 6.1. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record, I find that the show-cause notices were issued on two grounds viz. certain in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered 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 clearly hold that the SEZ Act has an overriding effect over other laws. Therefore this ground on the basis of which refund claims have been rejected is not tenable in law. 6.2 The ratio of the said decision was also followed by this Tribunal in the case of Lowe s Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCT, Bangalore cited supra. 6.3 In view of my discussions above, I am of the considered view that the ratio of the decisions cited supra are applicable in the present case and therefore by following the ratio of the said decision, I am of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
