9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1012X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld eligible to refund - Decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 50562 of 2019-SM - FINAL ORDER NO. 51811/2019 - Dated:- 18-12-2019 - HON BLE MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Shri Sanjiv Agarwal, C. A. for the appellant Shri Y. Singh, Authorised Representative for the respondent ORDER ANIL CHOUDHARY: The issue in this appeal is whether the appellant SEZ unit is entitled to refund of ₹ 5,40,249/-, being in relation to cenvat credit for input services received during the quarter April, 2016 to June, 2016. 2. The appellant, M/s Vaibhav Global Limited incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 at Jaipur, and is engaged in processing/ manufacturing/ retailing of gem stone and jeweller ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appeared to Revenue that service tax has not been paid by the appellant, as challan pertains to another assessee unit of M/s Vaibhav Global Limited, depicting service tax Registration No. AAACV4679FSD001 and having address at E-68, EPIP Sitapura Industrial Area, whereas the address of the appellant SEZ unit is at E1 E2, SEZ-II, EPIP, Sitapura. The show cause notice was adjudicated on contest vide order in original dated 20.06.2017 disallowing the part of the refund claim for ₹ 5,40,249/- and allowed the refund claim of ₹ 77,663/-. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order-in-appeal dated 21.12.2018 have been pleased to reject the appeal. Being aggrieved, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challan, registration number and address mentioned are not of the appellant SEZ unit but of M/s Vaibhav Global Limited, which is a registered company having three DTA units, one 100% EOU, and one SEZ unit (appellant). Learned Commissioner (Appeals) held that the appellant units are one and the same and thus for deposit of service tax in the service tax code of the company, for such violation of the rule, the substantial benefit of refund should not be rejected. He further took notice that certificate of the Chartered Accountant certifying that the amount of refund involved has not been taken credit of by the parent company. Accordingly, it was held that the refund is admissible to the appellant. Learned Counsel urges that the facts bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
