TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 51 of this Act gives overriding effect over other Acts. This being the legal position, the condition of Notification No. 15/2009 that refund is only admissible to services which are not wholly consumed within the SEZ cannot nullify the overriding provisions of Section 51 of the SEZ Act. The law makers made different schemes, one for granting refund of tax paid on services exported into SEZ and, the other for granting outright exemption to services which are provided to be wholly consumed within the SEZ. If the service provider pays Service Tax on the service provided to an SEZ unit, the recipient is bound to get refund unless assessment at the end of service provider was re-opened and refund was given to the service providers. - Dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is refundable to the appellant. He was contended that Section 51 of the SEZ Act provides overriding authority over other Acts and therefore since tax is not payable under the SEZ Act, it cannot be demanded under the Service Tax Law. He stated that the issue is no longer res integra and is decided in their favour in the case of Intas Pharma Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad - 2013 (32) STR 543 (Tri-Ahmd.) and in their own case in CESTAT Order No. A/1324 1325/14/SMB/C-IV dated 12.09.2014.. 4. The learned AR reiterates the findings of the Commissioner and relies on the Principal Bench judgment in the case of Everest Industry Ltd. vs. Commissioner 2013 (31) STR 189 (Tri-Del.) to justify their stand that refund cannot be sanct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Economic Zone except for services consumed wholly within the Special Economic Zone; 6. I note that the SEZ Act 2005, under Section 26 (i) (e), provides that all services imported into the SEZ to carry on authorised operations in SEZ shall be exempted. Further Section 51 of this Act gives overriding effect over other Acts. This being the legal position, the condition of Notification No. 15/2009 that refund is only admissible to services which are not wholly consumed within the SEZ cannot nullify the overriding provisions of Section 51 of the SEZ Act. The law makers made different schemes, one for granting refund of tax paid on services exported into SEZ and, the other for granting outright exemption to services which are provided to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to suffer tax incidence. It was also argued by the learned AR that in the case of Everest industries Ltd. (supra), the Principal Bench had rejected the refund claims in a similar case. I find that the facts in that case are different. In that case the issue was refund of CENVAT credit under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules in respect of inputs services use in the manufacture of final products cleared for export. The Tribunal held that anybody other than SEZ unit cannot be allowed to claim in benefit under SEZ Act and benefit of refund of accumulated CENVAT credit on inputs used in manufacture of goods supplied to the SEZ units cannot be given. The facts of that case being at variance with the present case. I reject the contention of the lear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
