9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (4) TMI 783X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion by the appellant. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant is located in two SEZs. They sought approval and applied for the same on 10.6.2010. The approval came on 23.2.2011. They have filed the refund claim 22.2.2011 for the period from July, 2010 to September, 2010. Show cause notice was issued that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions of notification No. 9/09. Therefore, refund claim filed by the applicant is sought to be denied. Thereafter the adjudication took place. It was held that refund claim has been filed beyond the prescribed time period in the said notification and services of CHA and scientific engineering services are not the approved services, therefore, appellant is not entitled to claim the refund claim. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efund of service tax paid on these services. He also submits that as per notification No. 15/2009 dated 20.5.2009, the appellant is entitled to claim refund on the services specified and used in relation to various operations in SEZ goods except the services of SEZ. 5. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 6. In this case, there are two issues: a) whether refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation; b) or/and whether the appellant is entitled for the service tax paid by the CHA and scientific engineering services. This issue came up before the Tribunal in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd (supra) wherein the Tribunal observed as under: "6. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. 6.1 As regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d operations in the SEZ except for services consumed wholly within the SEZ. This view of the department is also incorrect. Notification No. 09/2009-ST exempts the taxable services specified in Clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 which are provided in relation to the authorized operations in a SEZ and received by a developer or units of a SEZ, whether or not the said taxable services are provided inside the SEZ, from the whole of the service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. The refund procedure given below for operationalising the exemption applies to services which are procured from outside in respect of which the service tax liability has to be discharged first and the refund claim subsequentl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be sub served and the objective realized broader view of the provisions relating to refund has to be taken. Therefore, even if the appellant was not eligible for refund under Notification No. 09/2009-ST dated 3.3.2009, the appellants were certainly eligible for refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In this view of the matter, rejection of service tax refund is not sustainable in law. " 7. Thereafter, this Tribunal allowed the refund claim holding that section 11 B of the Act, the appellant is entitled to claim the refund of services received in SEZ. I further find that for the subsequent period in appellant's own case refund claim was allowed holding refund claim filed within the time and the services received in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
