9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 673X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onomic Zone (MPSEZ) as a developer of AMRL Hi-Tech City and the appellant claimed the refund of credit paid on various input services under Rule 5 of CCR. Appellant claimed refund of Rs. 89,82,783/- towards service tax paid on various input services. While scrutinizing the refund, it was found that appellants were not eligible for refund on certain services amounting to Rs. 18,13,434/- for which a show cause notice dt. 5.8.2014 was issued for denying refund claim to that extent mainly on the services viz. Company Secretary Service, Chartered Accountant Service, Security Service, Legal Consultancy services etc. The adjudicating authority in his order sanctioned the refund claim of Rs. 71,69,349/- but rejected the refund of Rs. 18,13,434/- on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any evidence to show that these services were used in relation to authorized operation of SEZ as a developer. 5. After hearing both sides, I find that there is no dispute on the fact that appellant being a developer is registered with Development Commissioner, MEPZ, Special Economic Zone, Chennai vide LOA No.F.2 (2)/2/2007 EP dt. 23.5.2007. On perusal of the Development Commissioners letter dt. 13.12.2003 wherein the unit of Approval committee has approved the list of specified services for claiming the benefit under Notification 12/2013. On perusal of the list of services which contained 47 services (annexed at pages 53, 54 of the paper book) vide Sl.No.7, 11, 21, 22, 26 & 32 which relates to approval list of specified services viz. Char ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tridge No.MVN/451 dt. 08.11.2013 towards professional charges in connection with appearing before Hon'ble Madurai Bench of High Court, wherein the appellants have paid legal fees of Rs. 10,05,000/-. A perusal of these invoices clearly show that fees have been paid for the appeal suit. I find from the bills, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that amount has been paid in connection with Appeal Suit (A.S.No.191 to 193/2006 and A.S. No.191 and 192/2008) which was related to Madurai Land Land Acquisition matters pending before Madurai Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. As a foot note to the bill, it has to be paid on the taxable value by AMRL Hiech City Ltd to the Central govt as per Notfn No.36/2012 dt. 20.6.2012. I find from the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
