TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of exemption from payment of service tax. When the services have been approved, the benefit of exemption cannot be denied. Section 26 of the SEZ Act, lays down provisions for exemption from duties and taxes. Section 51 of the said Act provides for over riding effect. Therefore the immunity provided from paid service tax cannot be taken away by the procedural prescriptions of Notification No.9/2009 or 15/2009. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/177/2011 - Final Order No. 40901/2018 - Dated:- 8-3-2018 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri P. Paul Thangam, CA, Shri P. Aravind Thangam, CA,- For the Appellant Shri K P Muralidhar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etter dt.29/6/2009 communicated the list of approved services. The said list contained only 37 services as against 106 services requested by the appellant. Infact the list as communicated to the appellant was only a default list without proper appreciation of the activities of the appellant. The list contained list of services approved generally for SEZ units. Thereafter Development Commissioner approved further list of 21 services vide letter dt.15/9/2009. The Show Cause Notice was issued also proposed to reject the refund of service tax of amount of ₹ 967/- for the reason that the invoices do not contain al particulars as prescribed under Rule 4 (A) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 He submitted that there is no dispute that the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2) S.T.R.543 (Tri. - Ahmd.). With regard to the issue that certain invoices did not contain the necessary particulars, as prescribed under Rule 4 (A), the Ld. Consultant submitted that being a very small amount of ₹ 967/-, the appellant is not contesting this issue. 3. The Ld.AR., Sh. K.P. Muralidharan reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the appellant is eligible for refund of service tax paid on Renting of Immovable Property Service. The original authority has rejected the refund on the ground that on the date of filing of the refund claim, the said services, viz; Renting of Immovable Property Services were not approved by the Development ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of taxable services of SEZ etc., to get benefit of exemption of the service tax. In any case, since the appellants have obtained approval for the said services, we find that the error would only be a procedural infraction which can be condoned. The substantive benefit cannot be denied for a procedural lapse. The claim of ₹ 967/- being given up by appellant is not considered in this appeal. 6. From the above discussions, we hold that the denial of refund in respect of ₹ 1,08,42,743/- and ₹ 67,017/- is unjustified. We hold that the appellants are eligible for refund. The appeal is allowed in above terms with consequential reliefs, if any. (Operative part of the order pronounced in open court) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
