Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2016 (11) TMI 834

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m. As regards the various discrepancies as noted in the refund claims like no proper invoice, service of hiring of air craft and air transport services not approved by approval committee, registration no. not mentioned on invoices, invoice in the name of other unit, incorrect amount, depreciation allowance, allocation of rent and electricity, bill not produced for verification; we find these things need to be factually verified by the adjudicating authority. In view of this, the refund claim to the extent indicated herein above, we remand the mater back to the adjudicating authority to arrive a conclusion after consideration of the various records that may be produced by the appellant. Appeal allowed - matter remanded. - ST/409 to 411, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... refund claim beyond the period of six months but within a period of one year of rendering the export services. 4. Learned Counsel would draw our attention to the Order-in-Original and Order-in-Appeal. It is his submission that they have preferred the appeal against that portion of the Order in which partial refund claim has been rejected only on the ground that services rendered are consumed within the SEZ. It is his submission that part of the refund claim was rejected as hit by limitation having been filed after the period of six months of export of services. At the outset, it is his submission that various refund claims have been rejected for non production of documents, the amount claimed in excess, services are not approved by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... also undisputed that the service provider had an option of claiming of exemption of non payment of Service Tax under Notification No. 09/2009-ST. 8. The appellant herein had claimed the refund of the Service Tax liability discharged by them on the services received which were consumed by them an unit situated within SEZ. It is the case of the Revenue that such Service Tax liability cannot be refund as the service provider who has not discharge the Service Tax liability as per Notification No. 09/2009-ST; since no tax liability is discharge, an amount paid by the service provider is not tax under the provision of Finance Act, 1994, seems to be not in consonance with the law. 9. We find that the submission made by the learned Depar .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the taxable services specified in Clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 which are provided in relation to the authorised 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 subsequently. In the case of services which are wholly consumed within the SEZ, there is no necessity to discharge the service tax liability ab initio. That does not me .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ible for refund under Notification No. 9/2009-S.T., 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. It can be seen from the above reproduced ratio that the main reason for rejection of the refund claim now stands decided in favour of the appellant herein. In view of the foregoing judicial pronouncement, we hold that the refund claims of the appellant cannot be rejected for reason that services are wholly consumed within SEZ and they are time barred having been filed beyond the period of six months. It is seen from records of all these cases, refund claims are filed within six month .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates