2015 (4) TMI 783 - AT - Service Tax

Rejection of refund claim - Notification No. 9/09 - Bar of limitation - CHA and scientific and engineering services - Held that - Tribunal allowed the refund claim holding that section 11 B of the Act, the appellant is entitled to claim the refund of services received in SEZ. I further find that for the subsequent period in appellant's own case refund claim was allowed holding refund claim filed within the time and the services received in SEZ is entitled to claim refund as the service tax has been paid. In view of this observation, I hold that appellant is entitled to refund claim on both the issues relying on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Tata Consultancy Service Ltd. (2012 (8) TMI 500 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) - Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation.
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the service tax paid on CHA and scientific engineering services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim under notification No. 9/09, citing it as time-barred and claiming that CHA and scientific engineering services were not approved services for exemption. The appellant applied for approval on 10.6.2010, received it on 23.2.2011, and filed the refund claim on 22.2.2011 for the period from July to September 2010. The adjudication held the claim as beyond the prescribed time and excluded CHA and engineering services from approved services, denying the refund claim.

2. The appellant argued that their refund claim falls within the statutory period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, citing the Tribunal's decision in Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Mumbai. They contended that services provided to SEZ units are deemed as exports, entitling them to a refund. The respondent opposed, stating that the refund claim was time-barred under notification No. 9/09 and that CHA and engineering services were not approved for refund. They highlighted notification No. 15/2009, specifying services eligible for refund related to SEZ operations.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the issues, referencing the Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. case. It emphasized that services used in SEZ operations, even if wholly consumed within the SEZ, are eligible for refund under Section 11B. The Tribunal noted that services to SEZ units are deemed exports, aligning with SEZ Act provisions. It concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund claim on both issues, based on previous Tribunal decisions. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.