TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 775X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her enclosed along with the invoices issued by the service providers. The appellant has categorically submitted that besides the activity of generation of electricity in the SEZ area, in no other activity is carried out by them where the input services have been used. Two refund claims which were also rejected as barred by limitation - Held that:- Initially these claims were filed in time but voluntarily withdrawn by the appellant and again filed after six months. The department ought to have condoned the delay in filing the application for the second time. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL Nos. ST/86496-86502/2014 - A/85028-85034/2019 - Dated:- 9-1-2019 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Sanjiv Sri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... med refund by the appellant have been duly approved by the Development Commissioner and used for providing authorised operations within SEZ area accordingly, they are eligible to refund of service tax paid on these services. He has submitted that all these services have been approved by the Development Commissioner and accordingly, they are eligible to refund of service tax paid on these services being used by them in the authorized operations in the SEZ area. It is his contention that the authorities below, even though they produced the relevant invoices, challans, journal vouchers pertaining to each transaction to establish that the services were received in the SEZ area in relation to authorized operations but the same has not been appre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Accountant s certificate dated 18.5.2012. Further, he has submitted that this Tribunal has already allowed refund claim on the same set of services used in the authorized operations within the SEZ for the earlier and subsequent period. 5. Learned AR for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the learned Commissioner (Appeals). 6. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by both sides. 7. We find that the short issue involved in the appeals is whether the appellant is entitled to refund of service tax paid on various input services used by them in the SEZ for authorized operations. The contention of the appellant is that the approved services by the Development Commissioner have been used in the authorized operations, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the subsequent period allowed their appeals vide order No. A/90731-90733/17/STB dated 21.10.2017 and for the earlier period vide order No. A/171/2012/CSTB/C-I dated 17.2.2012, relating to refund of service tax paid for use of the services in the authorized operations. With regard to two refund claims which were also rejected as barred by limitation, we find that initially these claims were filed in time but voluntarily withdrawn by the appellant and again filed after six months. In our view, the department ought to have condoned the delay in filing the application for the second time. 8. In these circumstances, we do not find merit in the impugned order. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the appeals are allowed with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
