2024 (8) TMI 1590 - AT - Service Tax

CENVAT Credit - services availed of by the appellants SEZ unit operating under the SEZ scheme - disallowance of benefit of refund on the ground of two seperate invoices and therefore renting of immovable property could not have been appropriate head for seeking refund - HELD THAT - It has not been the allegation of the department that even two services are treated as separate there would have been any tax difference between the renting of immovable property and renting of fixture and furniture and treated as such. This court is of the view that for the purposes of Revenue Department it makes no difference if the same has been treated as one item consolidated as renting of immovable property or has been shown in invoices as two separate items even though in TR 6 challan in a consolidated manner as renting of immovable property. Therefore factum of treatment given by the appellant party was very much on record. In view of this considering beneficial nature of export benefits available to the party this court is particularly of the view that refund is improperly rejected and same has not been considered as per the law but on mere technicalities. Appeal allowed.

Summary

The dispute concerns the appellants' entitlement to service tax credit/refund on rentals paid by an SEZ unit under the post-negative list regime (April 2015 to September 2016). The appellants issued separate invoices for rent of immovable property and rent of fixtures/furniture but consolidated both as "rent of immovable property" in their TR-6 challan. The Commissioner denied the refund, relying solely on the existence of two separate invoices, without explaining how this affected the tax liability, especially since both services were taxable under the regime.The Tribunal held that "for the purposes of Revenue Department, it makes no difference" whether the rentals were invoiced separately or consolidated, as there was no allegation of differing tax treatment between the two categories. The rejection of the refund was deemed improper and based on "mere technicalities," ignoring the beneficial export benefits available to the appellants.Accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the appeals with consequential relief, emphasizing that the refund denial was not "considered as per the law."