TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Held that:- Identical issue decided in the case of Intas Pharma Ltd. Vs CST Ahmedabad [2013 (7) TMI 703 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that any service tax paid/ remitted by a service provider is liable to be refunded to the provider who has remitted service tax in relation to taxable services provided to the unit to carry on authorized operations in a SEZ - refund allowed - appeal allow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by developer or units of SEZ shall be provided by way of refund except for services consumed wholly within the SEZ. The impugned amounts of all relate to services which are wholly consumed within the SEZ and hence lower authorities have held that in view of the aforesaid notification, refund of the said amount wound fall within the scope of Notification No.9/2009-ST. 2. Today when the matter u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S. Govindarajan opposes the appeals. He submits that as per proviso (c) of the Notification, the exemption claimed by developer or units of SEZ can be provided by way of refund of service tax paid on specified services used; however for services consumed wholly within the SEZ refund route has been specifically barred. 4. Heard both sides. We find that notwithstanding the contentions of the Ld. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of taxable service are enabled the facility of claiming refund of Service Tax, remitted by taxable service providers in relation to the taxable services provided to a unit in a SEZ. On this harmonious construction, the immunity to Service Tax provided under Section 7 or 26 of the 2005 Act cannot be so interpreted as to be eclipsed the procedural prescriptions of Notification No. 9/2009 or 15/200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s covered by the same assessee s case upheld by Gujarat High Court Judgement reported in 2014 (35) STR 515 (Guj.) . The other case laws cited by the Ld. Advocate fully support their submissions. 5. In view thereof, the impugned order to the contrary in all these appeals cannot sustain and will require to be set aside, which we hereby do. Appeals are allowed with consequential benefits, if any, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
