9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1007X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hose services for carrying out authorized operation. It is noted that both the input services have been subsequently included by the Development Commissioner of SEZ in the List of default services. The impugned order is not sustainable in law - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. 20386 of 2020 - Final Order No. 20088/2021 - Dated:- 24-3-2021 - SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Deepak Kumar Jain, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Smt. C.V. Savitha, Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 05.08.2020 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected the refund cla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... without properly appreciating the provisions of SEZ Act and the definition of Input Service. He further submitted that the Respondent has wrongly rejected the input tax credit of ₹ 12,13,983/- for the reason that the services such as Business Auxiliary Services and Management and Business Consultancy Services are not included in the list of specified services required for authorized operations as issued by the Development Commissioner, SEZ. He further submitted that input services of Business Auxiliary Service and Management and Business Consultancy Service are required for export of taxable output services and merely because they are not mentioned in the Approved List of authorised services by the Development Commissioner, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mbai) Mahindra Engineering Service Ltd. Vs CCE, Pune-I, 2014-TIOL-2534-CESTAT-MUM Union of India Vs Makers Malt, 2017 (51) STR J132 (Raj.) Target Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Asst. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore (OIA No. 161 to 166/2017) 5. On the other hand, learned AR reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of 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 said specified services are not included in the Default List and services approved by the Development Commissioner of SEZ. Further, I find that there is no dispute that the said services have been used by the appellant for autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o first pay the service tax and then come forward for refund if entire services were wholly consumed witcedural prescriptions of Notification No.9/2009 or 15/2009. These Notifications are calibrated to enable recip. 6.1. Further, in the case of Intas Pharma Ltd. Vs CST, Ahmedabad cited supra CESTAT has held as under: On true and fair construction of Notifications 9/2009 and 15/2009 issued under Section 93(1) of the Act, considered in the light of the overarching provisions of Sections 7 and 26(e) of the 2005 Act, the conclusion appears compelling that neither Notification 9/2009 nor 15/2009 disentitle immunity to Service Tax enjoined by the provisions of the 2005 Act. It therefore appears that Notification Nos. 9/2009 and 15/2009 m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STAT Mumbai has held as under: It is also noted that the SEZ Act, clearly provides under Section 50(1) that it will have overriding effect over the provisions of any other law. As both the SEZ Act and Service Tax Act, have been passed by Parliament, the provisions of Section 51 have to be given effect to. The reliance placed on the DHL Logistic Pvt. Ltd. (supra) by the A.R. relates to exemption notification No.4/2004 which did not incorporate the refund mechanism. On the other hand, in the case of Intas Pharma Ltd. Vs CST reported in 2013 (32) STR 543 (Tri. Ahmd.)=2013-TIOL-1091-CESTAT-AHM, it was held that provisions of SEZ Act have overriding effect. Therefore, there appears to be no reason to deny the refund claim. 6.3. Further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
