9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1080X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent ORDER The brief facts of the case are that appellant is having service tax registration and engaged in providing taxable service. They had filed a refund claim for Rs. 1,14,79,918/- pertaining to the period from January 2015 to March 2015 in respect of service tax paid by them on the input services which had been used for their authorised operations as per Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2/2015 provided by M/s United India Insurance Company Ltd was involving group mediclaim tailor made policy for 2015-16. The said service of mediclaim was not covered by the approved list of services. Therefore, the adjudicating authority rejected the claim for Rs. 23,05,740/- on mediclaim. Being aggrieved by the order-in-original appellant filed appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who by agreeing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irement substantial benefit of refund cannot be rejected. He further submits that even if the refund is denied, the appellant is entitled for CENVAT credit and in turn they are entitled for refund under Rule 5 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. He further submits that being a SEZ unit it is the general policy of the Government of India that neither on the input service nor on the output service any ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... clearly covers the mediclaim. It is also observed that the appellant being a SEZ unit their input services otherwise not taxable and the output service being 100% exported no service tax is payable. I also agree with the submission of the Learned Counsel that if at all the appellant does not claim the refund under Notification No. 12/2013-ST the appellant will be entitled for the refund under Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
