9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service Tax payment with evidence of challans, I find that the same was produced before the lower authority and also before me and the same is satisfactory. The appellant herein is eligible for claiming refund of the Service Tax paid by the service provider which is in consonance with the law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.78799 of 2018 - FINAL ORDER NO. 75203/2020 - Dated:- 4-2-2020 - SHRI P.K.CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri K.K.Acharya, Advocate for the Appellant (s) Shri S.S.Chattopadhyay, Authorized Representative for the Respondent (s) ORDER The appellant, M/s.Vedanta Ltd., erstwhile M/s.Vedanta Aluminium Ltd. (SEZ Unit), has preferred the present appeal against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... V(10)/42/Refund/S.Tax/VAL/SBP-I/2013/716 dated 18.03.2014 requiring the Appellant to show cause as to why the appellant s refund claim as above should not be rejected on, amongst others, the ground that they have not properly followed the provisions of the Notification No.40/2012-S.Tax dated 20.06.2012 and thereby violated the provision thereof. 5. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner vide the Order-in-Original No.R- 32/Refund/S.Tax/(32/2016)SBP-I/2016 dated 05.12.2016, whereby, the Appellant s refund claim of ₹ 1,31,309/- was rejected with the finding that the documents submitted by the Appellant in support of its claim was not a proper document admissible in terms of Notification No.4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax paid. 8. Learned Advocate further submits that the impugned order has completely ignored the binding precedents cited by the appellant in support of its claim that a substantive benefit of refund cannot be denied as long as consumption of the impugned services by the SEZ are not in dispute and that mere discrepancy in the invoices/bills/challans cannot be a reason to deny the benefit of refund. Having not considered the appellant s above submissions read with the case laws relied upon by the appellant, the impugned order suffers from the infirmity of being a non-speaking order, liable to be set aside. 9. Learned Authorized Representative, appearing on behalf of the respondent department justifies the orders of the lower authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tive benefit of refund available to SEZ unit. It is the policy of the Government to exempt or refund the input tax incurred by the SEZ unit. Keeping the policy of the Government in mind and specifically in the light of section 7 and section 51 of the SEZ Act, 2005, I find denial of refund claim on this ground is not sustainable. Regarding re-conciliation of Service Tax payment with evidence of challans, I find that the same was produced before the lower authority and also before me and the same is satisfactory. 14. If the service recipient is a SEZ unit, they should pay Service Tax to the service provider and claim the refund of the amount. In the case in hand, the fact that the appellant is SEZ unit is not disputed and the receipt of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
