9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 873X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly. Since the issue involved in all the appeals is identical, therefore, all the appeals are disposed of by this common order. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Biocon Ltd. (SEZ Unit), Bangalore filed two applications claiming refund of Rs. 26,40,564/- and Rs. 30,27,460/- being service tax paid on specified services used for authorized operations in SEZ under Notification No.12/2013 dated 1.7.2013 as amended. The refund is claimed for the period July 2015 to September 2015 and October 2015 to December 2015 respectively. Similarly, M/s. Biocon Ltd. (SEZ Developer) also filed two applications claiming refund of Rs. 7,67,614/- and Rs. 7,24,620/- being the service tax paid on specified services used for various operations in SEZ u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that in the present case, no show-cause notice was issued for rejection of the refund claim and only a deficiency memo was issued; whereas it was incumbent on the part of the department to issue the show-cause notice before adjudication, which was not followed in the present case. He further submitted that there is no dispute in the present case that the said services were not used for authorized operations and therefore, the appellants have fulfilled the mandatory conditions of the Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 1.7.2013. He further submitted that SEZ Act, 2005 overrides of other Acts as prescribed in Section 51 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices produced at the time of personal hearing before the Commissioner (A) even though the subject services were not part of the approved list of services at the time of filing the refund claim. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that as per the Notification, the impugned services are required to be approved by the UAC whereas in the present case, these impugned services were not approved by the UAC at the time of filing the refund claim. He further submitted that though some of these services were approved subsequently on the application filed by the appellant and the UAC vide its letter dated 10.4.2018 approved the various services but in that list of approval, two services pertaining to Event ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
