Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2021 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (3) TMI 230 - AT - Service TaxRefund of Service tax paid - SEZ unit - input service or not - Group Health Insurance Service - Group Medical Insurance Service - Group Personal Accident Insurance Service - services are used for providing various authorized operations in the appellant company - Department entertained the view that the appellants are not entitled to the refund of service tax paid on the specified services on the ground that those services are not falling under the default list of services approved by the Development Commissioner - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Toyo Engineering India Ltd. [2006 (8) TMI 184 - SUPREME COURT] and also in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise V. Gas Authority of India Ltd. [2007 (11) TMI 276 - SUPREME COURT] has held that the authorities under Act cannot travel beyond the show-cause notice. Further I find that in the show-cause notice as well as in Order-in-Original, the refund has been rejected only on the ground that the said insurance services have not been approved by the Approval Committee of the SEZ and hence the appellants are not entitled to the refund. Even on merit the said services fall in the definition of ‘insurance service’ and has also been approved by the Unit Approval Committee read with Ministry of Commerce & Industry letter dated 16/09/2013 and subsequent letters dated 19/11/2013, 19/06/2014, 09/07/2014 which includes “General Insurance Business Services” at Sl. No. 26. Further, it is found that the General Insurance Business Services also form part of the default list of services specified by the Karnataka Special Economic Zone vide Circular No. 2/2014 dated 25/07/2014 - Further this Tribunal in the case of Barclays Global Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (6) TMI 1080 - CESTAT MUMBAI] held that Medical Insurance and Personal Accident Insurance are covered under the General Insurance Business. Also it has been consistently held by the Tribunal in the appellant’s own case as well as in other cases that mere non-inclusion of services in the list of Unit Approval Committee shall not be a ground for rejection of refund claim. The provisions of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 has an overriding effect over other laws in force. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|