2024 (12) TMI 602

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ervices, Business Auxiliary Service, when they have wholly consumed the said services in SEZ - HELD THAT:- The learned advocate referred to the judgments of this Tribunal rendered in their own case DELL INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, BANGALORE-SERVICE TAX, KARNATAKA [ 2015 (3) TMI 1301 - CESTAT, BANGALORE ] following the earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of TATA CONSUL .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... harth. B, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri M.A. Jithendra, Asst. Commissioner (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Heard both sides. 2. This appeal is filed against Order-in-Appeal No.12/2011 dated 30.03.2011 passed by the Commissioner of (Appeals), Large Taxpayer Unit, Bangalore. 3. The short issue involved in the present appeal is admissibility of refund of service tax paid on Information Technology S .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... had taken the view that appellant is eligible for refund. As regards utilization in authorized operations, the Tribunal had observed that the Committee which gives approval has a representative of the Revenue also as a Member and having approved being part of the Committee, subsequently Revenue cannot take a stand that input services specified and approved have no nexus or they have not been used .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X