9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 1153X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SEZ unit, is entitled for refund of service tax paid by them on input services used for authorised operations? The refund in these Appeals have been denied by the department relying upon notifications dated 01.03.2011 and 20.06.2012. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in respect of service tax paid on input services wholly consumed within the SEZ, the entire amount is available as refund and that it is only for those services which are not wholly consumed within the SEZ, the formula prescribed by the notifications, which has been relied upon by the department, is to be applied. He further submits that the meaning of the terms 'wholly consumed' has also given in the relevant notifications but the authorities below failed to take ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x 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 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he 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 input services for the purpose of SEZ operations was not alleged or denied by the department, as per the conditions of notification, the appellant should be entitled for the refund benefit. In this connection, I find that the ratio of the order/decision cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant squarely applicable to the facts of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
