TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1693
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....siness support services. The Department observed that the refund claim of Rs. 4,69,986/- pertains to the services falling under business auxiliary service, which is not admissible to the appellant, as the said service is not mentioned in the list of specified service approved by the approval committee for the authorized operation under SEZ. Hence, out of the claim of aforesaid Rs. 5,96,690/- refund of amount of Rs. 4,69,986/- was proposed to be rejected vide the show cause notice No.6418 dated 24.10.2016. The said proposal was confirmed initially vide the order No. 8686 dated 21.11.2016 and the appeal thereof was rejected vide Order-in-Appeal No.46 dated 28.02.2018. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. Heard Shri Yas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d during a period from August, 2010 to December, 2013. Thus, I have no hesitation in holding that at the relevant time, the Business Support service was not included in the list of approved services." 5. It is submitted that in view of the clauses of the Notification, there is no infirmity in the said findings. Appeal is accordingly prayed to be dismissed. 6. After hearing the parties and perusing the entire record also keeping in view the rival contentions of the parties, I observe and hold as follows:- Notification No. 12 of 01.07.2013 grants exemption by way of refund of service tax paid on the specified services received by the SEZ unit or the developer and used for the authorized operations, provided that such specified services ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n SEZ. No doubt, the service was not approved at the time it was rendered, but the requisite ingredient for claiming refund as per the aforesaid clause is the time when service tax for the specified service is paid. As already mentioned above, the service tax was paid after the business support service, as received by the appellant, was categorized as specified service. Since, it was exclusively for authorized operations, the appellant was otherwise entitled for ab initio exemption but for the service to be specified later than the period during which it was received. Since the liability under reverse charge mechanism was discharged only after approval, I am of the firm opinion that the period during which the service was rendered is not re....