9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng exemption, the Developer or Unit of SEZ shall obtain a list of taxable services as are required for the authorized operations approved by the Approval Committee. The said clause nowhere specified that the Letter of Approval has to be obtained before filing of the refund applications - Since the fact is not under dispute that the appellant is governed under the SEZ Scheme and procuring the services on the basis of Letter of Approval issued by the competent authority i.e. Approval Committee, denial of refund benefit on the ground of non-submission of Letter of Approval prior to the date of refund claim should not be considered as legal and proper - the denial of refund benefit on this ground is not sustainable. Denial of refund benefit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant Shri S.B. Mane, Authorised Representative for respondent ORDER Per: S.K. Mohanty Brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged inter alia, in the activities of performing a broad range of backend operations like administrative support, financial accounting, data processing etc., for its group company M/s Jardine Lloyd Thompson, located outside India. Such services provided by the appellant are categorized as taxable service, defined under the Finance Act, 1994 and for that purpose, the appellant got itself registered with the Jurisdictional Service Tax authorities. The appellant operates its unit located within the Special Economic Zone (SEZ). Duri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pur 2016 (44) STR 126 (Tri. Del). With regard to non-submission of documentary evidence regarding receipt and use of specified services in the SEZ, the learned Advocate submits that the Notification dated 01.03.2011 also does not require that the assessee should submit any documents, evidencing receipt and use of specified services. In this context, he has placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Wardha Power Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur 2018 (10) GSTL 248 (Tri. Mum). 2.3 With regard to rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation, the learned Advocate submits that the discretion provided in the Notification to the adjudicating authority has not been exercised jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 011-S.T. dated 01.03.2011 for procuring the input services without payment of service tax and also for claiming of refund of service tax, where ever such tax has been paid on the specified services received for various operations in SEZ. In this case, the appellant had opted for payment of service tax on the input services and thereafter, had filed the refund applications before the Jurisdictional service tax authorities. 5.1 With regard to the observations of the lower authorities that since the letter of approval of list of services was received by the appellant on 07.07.2011, the benefit of refund should not be available, I find that the Notification dated 01.03.2011 at para 2(b) provides that for the purpose of claiming ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority on the ground that the said application was filed by the appellant beyond the period of one year from the date of payment made to the vendors. With regard to the time limit for filing the refund application, the Notification dated 01.03.2011 at para 3(e) provides that claim for refund shall be filed within one year from the end of the month, in which actual payment of service tax was made by the SEZ unit. The said clause provides discretion to the Central Excise officers for extending the period of limitation. In this case, though the refund application was not filed within the stipulated time, but the empowered authorities under statute have not extended the time limit for entertaining the refund application. Since the fact of use of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
