9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 1278X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CHA was bifurcated under different heads but the fact remains that service was provided by CHA towards CHA service only. Therefore, merely because the invoice is for amount towards various expenses but the same were in relation to CHA service by the CHA, hence, the refund cannot be rejected. Refund claim - Construction service received from Jay Khodiyar in relation to construction of trenching and pipelines - HELD THAT:- The construction was exclusively for SEZ only. It is very obvious that a part of the same will be outside the premises of the SEZ but that does not mean that service was received for other than authorised operations of SEZ. Accordingly, on the admitted fact that trenching pipeline installed partly in SEZ and partly ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tside the SEZ therefore refund was claimed rejected under Notification No. 09/2009-ST. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claims therefore the present appeals. 2. Ms. Dimple Gohil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in respect of Appeal No. ST/447 and 448 of 2012, the Commissioner (Appeals) has admitted that the services were availed wholly within SEZ therefore, he should have allowed the refund. She submits that even though service tax was paid which was otherwise not payable should have been refunded. As regards the CHA Service, she submits that even though CHA has charged service charges rendered the different cost, salaries and other expenses etc. to the overall service the same w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We find that even though total service charge of CHA was bifurcated under different heads but the fact remains that service was provided by CHA towards CHA service only. Therefore, merely because the invoice is for amount towards various expenses but the same were in relation to CHA service by the CHA, hence, the refund cannot be rejected. 6. As regards refund of Rs. 5,548/- for the construction service received from Jay Khodiyar in relation to construction of trenching and pipelines, we find that the construction was exclusively for SEZ only. It is very obvious that a part of the same will be outside the premises of the SEZ but that does not mean that service was received for other than authorised operations of SEZ. Accordingly, on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
