TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribed under the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Mere technical discrepancies in the invoices cannot be the ground for denying substantive benefit of refund available to an SEZ unit. It is the policy of the Government to exempt or refund the input taxes incurred by the SEZ Unit. Keeping this policy of the Government in mind and specifically in the light of sections 7 and section 51 of the SEZ Act, 2005, denial of refund claim on this ground is not sustainable. With respect to the second objection, it is found that the Appellant has produced the authorisation dated 05 October 2009 in which at serial no. 27 Business Support Service is specifically mentioned. It is also found from the GAR 7 challan enclosed to the Appeal that service tax was paid b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for rejection of refund was that the invoices received from the Appellants overseas entity viz. Tieto Finland, were defective as it did not indicate the category of service and the same were not signed. He further submits that, it was held in the impugned Orders-in-Appeal that the service in question was not approved by the Unit Approval Committee which is a mandatory requirement to avail refund under Notification 17/ 2011 -ST dated 01.03.2011. He further submits that Appellant had received certain services from the overseas entity Tieto Finland in the nature of management, marketing, personnel, legal information technology, finance on a cost sharing basis. The overseas entity of the Appellants had raised invoices on the basis of costs attr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmitted that with respect to certain technical objections such as invoices not containing description of service, invoices not being signed, the provisions of service tax rules with respect to issue of invoices in specific format will apply only to service providers within the jurisdiction of service tax Act i.e. those who are located within India. In the present case the vendor of the Appellant being a group company located outside India, they are neither bound nor obliged to issue invoices as per the service tax rules in India. In any case, the Revenue has accepted service tax paid by the Appellant on such invoices and hence they cannot object to grant of refund on the very same invoices against which service tax payment has been duly acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , who is not required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 5.3 In any case, mere technical discrepancies in the invoices cannot be the ground for denying substantive benefit of refund available to an SEZ unit. It is the policy of the Government to exempt or refund the input taxes incurred by the SEZ Unit. Keeping this policy of the Government in mind and specifically in the light of sections 7 and section 51 of the SEZ Act, 2005, I find denial of refund claim on this ground is not sustainable. 5. 4 With respect to the second objection that the impugned service is not approved by the Unit Approval Committee, I find that the Appellant has produced the authorisation dated 05 October 2009in which at serial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
