Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2022 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 697 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid on the services utilized in SEZ for authorized operations - Validity of remanding the matter back to the lower authorities - Commissioner (Appeals) has got power to remand the case to the lower authority after the amendment made in the relevant Section w.e.f.11.05.2001, or not - refund of Service tax on services which were not specified services for authorised operations. Power of remand of the Commissioner (Appeals) - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the observation made by the Commissioner (Appeals) in Para XXII,XXIII, II, XII, XXXVIII mentioned in the part (D) of discussion and finding of impugned OIA cannot be regarded as amounting to a remand. In the present case, the directions given by the Commissioner (Appeals) for re-verifying a few aspects related to refund cannot be considered as amounting to a remand to the lower authority. These directions should have amounted to remand, if any, of the issues in dispute had been left unresolved by the Commissioner (Appeals) and sent back to the lower authority for a fresh decision or adjudication - This has not happened in the present case as all the issues raised by the Lower Authority in the adjudication order have been decided conclusively by the Commissioner (Appeals) as is evident from impugned Order-In-Appeal - there are no merits in the appeal of the Revenue. Refund of services which have been used by the respondent for authorized operation in the SEZ - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute in the present matter that the said services have been used by the respondent for authorized operation in the SEZ. Further, it is found that not mentioning the said services in the Approved List is only a technical defect and it should not debar the substantive benefit to the assessee who has utilized those services for carrying out authorized operation. It is also noted that disputed input services have been subsequently approved by the Committee in the approval List of services. Refund in respect of Chartered Accountancy Service - HELD THAT:- The Revenue disputed the refund on repair service on the ground that the pump was sent at Ahmedabad at vendor’s premises. The services were provided at Ahmedabad, which is situated outside the SEZ. The refund is available for the services used within SEZ and not outside SEZ. It is found that there is no dispute by the revenue that the impugned services of repair were used by the appellant in relation to the authorized operation and also covered under the approved list. When there is no dispute about the use of the said services in authorized operation, the question of rejecting the refund claim in itself is incorrect. Rejection of refund - whether the Commissioner (Appeals) has erred by ignoring the procedural lapses viz. incorrect address, incomplete address, address not mentioned? - HELD THAT:- In Some case the service provider mentioned the address of Sambhav Building. As per the condition of the Notification, the service should be utilized within SEZ, hence the address of SEZ is mandatory requirement. Hence such services cannot be considered as utilized in relation to authorized operation. On perusal of the impugned order, it is found that the Commissioner (Appeals) after going through the impugned Order-in-Original has passed a detailed order and thereafter set aside the Order-in-Original. There are no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|