TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 180X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich is used for their authorized operations. This issue is no more res integra and has been settled by Tribunal in the case of Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. [2018 (9) TMI 258 - CESTAT BANGALORE], wherein on similar set of facts, this Tribunal held that even if the services are not mentioned in the Unit Approval Committee’s list, refund is to be sanctioned. Refund allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/20508/2018-SM - Final Order No. 21959/2018 - Dated:- 31-12-2018 - MR. S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Mr. Ravi Raghavan Mr. Sudeshna, Advocates For the Appellant Mr. K.B. Nanaiah, Assistant Commissioner (AR) For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reasons. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner who also partly allowed the refund to the tune of ₹ 22,620/- (Rupees Twenty Two Thousand Six Hundred and Twenty only) and rejected the refund of ₹ 1,54,522/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Two only). Hence the present appeal. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating and considering the facts, law and evidence. He further submitted that in the present case the Department has overlooked the intention of the Government in enacting the SEZ Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces in the list of services approved by the Development Commissioner for authorized operations is just procedural lapse which cannot be considered as a ground for rejection of refund claim. 4. On the other hand the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that approval of the list of taxable services from Unit Approval Committee is mandatory and the said input services have not been approved by the Unit Approval Committee of SEZ. He further submitted that Business Auxiliary Service and Management and Business Consultancy Service are not included in approved list of services and therefore the refund has been rightly rejected. 5. After considering the submission of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms have been rejected by the impugned order is that the appellant has not produced the approved list of specified input services from the UAC of SEZ which is a mandatory condition as per the Commissioner (Appeals). In reply to this argument, the learned counsel submitted that in view of the settled legal position by various decisions relied upon by him, condition in respect of approval from UAC is not a mandatory requirement as the SEZ Act vide Section 51 of SEZ Act will have overriding effect over the provisions of any other law. Therefore, keeping in view the intention of the Government in enacting the SEZ Act and giving special fiscal concessions to SEZs, I am of the considered opinion that this is only a procedural and is not a mandator ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
