2024 (8) TMI 1591 - 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 separate invoices and 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 entitlement to Service Tax credit/refund by the appellant SEZ unit for services classified under rent of immovable property and rent of fixtures/furniture. The appellant issued separate invoices for these services but consolidated them as rent of immovable property in the TR 6 challan for the period October 2015 to March 2016, post the negative list regime effective July 2012. The Commissioner denied refund on the ground that separate invoicing precluded treating the entire amount as rent of immovable property, without providing reasoning on how this affected the tax liability. The Tribunal held that "for the purposes of Revenue Department, it makes no difference" whether the services are invoiced separately or consolidated, as both fall under taxable services outside the negative list. The rejection of refund was deemed improper and based on "mere technicalities," ignoring the beneficial nature of export benefits. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.