Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 724 - CESTAT MUMBAIRefund of CENVAT Credit - receipt of services in the premises which are not registered - Some of the unit of appellant were not registered - N/N. 9/2009-ST dated 3.3.2009 - period January, 2011 to March, 2011 - HELD THAT:- It is nowhere disputed by any of the authorities below that all the units are part of the same premises/SEZ unit operating in the said SEZ area and that the service are wholly consumed for the authorised operations. It is also not disputed that the appellant has paid the service tax as well as availed the input services. The invoices shows the payment of service tax on such services - I have been informed that the same have been approved by the Development Commissioner vide letter dated 9.9.2009 and 6.11.2009 respectively. I have also been informed that there is no provision in the online application form to mention all the premises. The rejection of refund claim on the ground of non-registration had come up before a co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the matter of COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, CHENNAI-II VERSUS SCIOINSPIRE CONSULTING SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD. [2016 (10) TMI 41 - CESTAT CHENNAI] in which the Tribunal while relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the matter of MPORTAL INDIA WIRELESS SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX [2011 (9) TMI 450 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] answered the issue in favour of the assessee. Time and again it has been repeatedly held by the Tribunal that no service tax can be levied on services provided to units situated in SEZ nothwithstanding anything contained in any notification. A combined reading of Section 51 of the SEZ Act read with Section 26 (1) ibid would clearly show that the services in the SEZ shall be exempted from payment of service tax - In my view, in the absence of a statutory provision which prescribes that registration is mandatory, the claim of the Appellant cannot be rejected. It is settled law that any beneficial provision should be interpreted liberally and for a mere procedural lapse, substantive benefit cannot be denied to the Assessee - Since in the instant matter it is only a procedural lapse therefore the same can be condoned. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|