Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 562 - CESTAT BANGALORERefund of service tax paid - time limitation - N/N. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 - refund rejected on the ground that the input services are commonly used for both SEZ and DTA operations - rejection also on the ground that claimant has not obtained prior approval of the said services - rejection also on the ground that payment towards the service received has not been made to respective service provider by the claimant, as required under Para 3(III)(d) of Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.7.2013 - HELD THAT:- The appellant has submitted that in their own case for the period January to March 2015, Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore has allowed the refund claim on identical facts and the same has not been challenged by the Revenue and has attained finality. The appellant does not have any DTA unit, they are only making supply to a DTA unit whereas the conditions of Para 3(III)(a) would be applicable only when the assessee has units in both SEZ and DTA whereas in the present case, the appellant has unit only in SEZ and make supply from SEZ to DTA unit and therefore the said condition of Para 3(III)(a) is not applicable in the present case - the denial of refund to the appellant is not sustainable in law. Rejection of refund on the ground of default list of services - HELD THAT:- This issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellants in their own case by this Tribunal in MANGALORE SEZ LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL TAX AND CENTRAL EXCISE, BELGAUM [2019 (7) TMI 211 - CESTAT BANGALORE] - refund allowed. Rejection on the ground that payment towards the service received has not been made to respective service provider by the claimant, as required under Para 3(III)(d) of Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.7.2013 - HELD THAT:- The refund has been wrongly rejected on the ground that the said services are commonly used for SEZ and DTA operations - also the appellant does not have DTA, they have only made supply to a DTA unit and therefore there is no violation of the conditions of the Notification - the rejection of refund claim is wrong and not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|