TMI Blog2012 (5) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se under consideration and there is nothing wrong in the Assistant Collector adopting the same procedure. In any case, it is an internal matter of the department how they should verify the eligibility to the refund claim. In the instant case, the refund sanctioning authority has directed the appellant to produce the C.A certificate and on that basis he has sanctioned the refund. The appellant herein cannot be faulted for following the procedure directed by the refund sanctioning authority. - Decided in favor of assessee. - ST/68/2011-Mum. - A/171/2012/CSTB/C-I - Dated:- 17-2-2012 - Ashok Jindal, P.R. Chandrasekharan, JJ. Bharat Raichandani for the Appellant. Y.K. Agarwal for the Respondent. ORDER P.R. Chandrasekharan , Technical Member This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. SR/388/NGP/2010 dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Customs (Appeals), Nagpur. 2. The appellant Wardha Power Company Ltd. (WPCL in short) are a SEZ status holder for generation of electrical energy. They filed a refund claim of service tax of Rs. 2,04,86,165/- on 29.09.2009 for the period from March, 2009 to July, 2009 with the Deputy Commiss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n received by the appellant in their registered office which is situated far away from the Special Economic Zone unit and in respect of such services received, the appellant can not claim refund, as there is no nexus between the services received and the authorized operations undertaken in the Special Economic Zone. The Revenue also contents that the approval of the list of services, from the Development Commissioner, has been received late and therefore, for the period prior to the date of approval, refund claim is not admissible. The learned lower appellate authority after considering the submissions, set aside the order of the lower adjudicating authority and allowed the Revenue's appeal. Hence the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant submits that though the approval of the Development Commissioner in respect of the list of the services is dated 13th August, 2009, it is in respect of services utilized in the Special Economic Zone unit and it is in pursuance of their application dated 6.7.2009 and same is valid in respect of the services mentioned therein irrespective of when the services were received. Prior to the issue of Notification No. 9/2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een received, so long as the services have been used in relation to the authorized operations, they are eligible for refund under Notification No. 09/2009-S.T. In the light of these submissions, the learned Advocate submits that they are eligible for the refund. 4. The learned authorized representative appearing for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the lower appellate authority. 5. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 6. We have also perused the list of services approved by the Development Commissioner vide letter No. SEEPZ-SEZ/NEW SEZ/WARDHA-CHNDPR/01/008-09 dated 13th August, 2009 wherein approval has been given in respect of the services under Rule 10 of SEZ Rules, 2006. As per the said approval, except for four services, namely, Stockbroker, Other Port, Share transfer Agent and Stock Exchange Service, all other services for which request has been made by the appellant have been approved by the Approval Committee. The appellant in their application dated 06.07.2009 had requested for approval of 53 services and in respect of 49 services they have received the approval from the Development Commissioner and in respect of these 49 services they are e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or units of Special Economic Zone and the person liable to pay service tax under sub-section (2) of section 68 for the said services are the same person, then in such cases exemption for the specified services shall be claimed by that person; ( b ) the developer or units of Special Economic Zone shall claim the exemption by filing a claim for refund of service tax paid on specified services; ( c ) the developer or units of Special Economic Zone shall file the claim for refund to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be; ( d ) the developer or units of Special Economic Zone who is not registered as an assessee under the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) or the rules made thereunder, or the said Finance Act or the rules made thereunder, shall, prior to filing a claim for refund of service tax under this notification, file a declaration in the Form annexed hereto with the respective jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, as the case may be; ( e ) the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise or the Deputy Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erefore, the argument of the department that the service tax refund will be available only for the services rendered on or after 03.03.2009 does not appear to have any legal basis. Therefore, this ground adduced by the Revenue is liable to be rejected. 6.3 Another ground on which the learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the refund is that some of the services have been rendered outside the SEZ unit; this ground is also not tenable. The preamble of the Notification makes it abundantly clear that exemption is in respect of services provided in relation to authorized operations in SEZ and received by a developer or units of the SEZ whether or not the said taxable services are provided inside SEZ. In other words, the Notification makes it abundantly clear irrespective of the place where the services were rendered whether inside the unit or outside the unit, so long as the services are rendered in respect of authorized operations, the SEZ unit is entitled to claim the refund subject to satisfaction of other conditions stipulated in the Notification. In the instant case it is not the claim of the Revenue that services have not been utilized in relation to authorized operations and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
