TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services were not mentioned in the list of approved services, this cannot be a reason for rejection of refund claim as it is an avowed policy of the Govt of India that SEZ unit should not be burdened with any taxes in order to make them competitive - refund allowed. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/30272-30273/2017-SM - Final Order No. 31249-31250/2017 - Dated:- 9-8-2017 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Mr. G. Lakshmi Narayan, Adv for the Appellant. Mr. Arun Kumar A.R. for the Respondent. ORDER These two appeals are directed against orders-in-appeal No. HYD-S/TAX-000-APP-0200-16-17-ST and HYD-SVTAX-000-APP-0201-16-17-ST dated 29.11.2016. Since both the appeals raise a common question of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STC)ST. 2.1. They also filed a refund claim dated 26.10.2015 for ₹ 9,66,698/- claiming refund of service tax paid on specified services in relation to authorized operations of the Visakhapatnam SEZ Unit for the same period, under the same Notification. The claim; was adjudicated in the OIO No.05/2016, wherein the lower authority granted a refund of ₹ 1,07,288/-and rejected the claim to the extent of ₹ 8,24,935/- and ₹ 34,475/- on the sole ground that the corresponding Business Support and GTA services were approved by the UAC on 09.04.2015, while the service was received prior to that date; totalling to ₹ 8,59,410/- The portion rejected in OIO No. 05/2016 culminated in A. No. 29/2016(STC) ST. 3. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ized operations, the refund should be grunted; that there is no condition in the notification requiring the inclusion of the input service in the UAC list prior to procurement of the service; that they rely on the case law cited at Para E. 3 of the grounds of appeal, in support of this contention; Denial of refund is violation of the provisions of SEZ Act, 2005; particularly Sections 7 and 51, and Rule 31 of the SEZ Rules, 2006; that if refund under the notification was denied, they were automatically eligible to claim it under Sec 11 B of the CEA 1944, read with Sec 83 of the Finance Act 1994; that they rely on the ratio of the rulings cited at Para F. 3 F.5 of the grounds of appeal, in support of this contention. 4. After f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsideration of the submissions made by both sides and perusal of the records, I find that the issue in this case falls in very narrow compass, as to whether the appellant is eligible for refund of the service tax paid under reverse charge. mechanism in respect of services received by him from foreign supplier or otherwise-. Undisputedly appellant is SEZ unit and eligible to receive services without payment of duty or can claim the refund of the duty under various provisions and more so under Notification No. 12/2013-ST; appellant had discharged service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism for various services received by him under the category of business support services on 6.10.2014 and subsequently claimed the refund on the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. It is noted that Notification No. 9/2009 does not state that the list of services required in relation to authorized operations in the SEZ should be got approved from the approval committee before providing the services. The appellants have pointed out that they had filed the refund claim after the list was approved. Thus, the claim is in consonance with the requirement of notification. 6.1 It is also noted that the SEZ Act, clearly provides under Section 50(1) that it will have overriding effect over the provisions of any other law. As both the SEZ Act and Service Tax Act, have been passed by Parliament, the provisions of Section 51 have to be given effect to. The reliance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
