9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 816X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es provided by the appellant are categorized as taxable service, defined under the Finance Act, 1994 and for that purpose, the appellant got itself registered with the Jurisdictional Service Tax authorities. The appellant operates its unit located within the Special Economic Zone (SEZ). During the disputed period, the appellant had filed refund applications on 27.02.2012, claiming refund of service tax paid on the input services, used for various operations of the SEZ unit. Such refund applications were rejected by the original authority vide order dated 08.10.2012 and upheld by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by the impugned order dated 17.01.2018, on the following grounds:- (a) Letter of approval of list of services required for aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd to rejection of refund claim on the ground of limitation, the learned Advocate submits that the discretion provided in the Notification to the adjudicating authority has not been exercised judiciously and the refund application was rejected solely on the ground of limitation. He has relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Makers Mart (supra) and Jubiliant Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Vadodare II - 2015 (40) STR 576 (Tri. Ahmd.) to state that when the power vested under the Notification has not been exercised in a broader perspective, rejection of refund applications on the ground of limitation alone, should not stand for judicial scrutiny. 3. On the other hand, learned D.R. appearing for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it of refund should not be available, I find that the Notification dated 01.03.2011 at para 2(b) provides that "for the purpose of claiming exemption, the Developer or Unit of SEZ shall obtain a list of taxable services as are required for the authorized operations approved by the Approval Committee." The said clause nowhere specified that the Letter of Approval has to be obtained before filing of the refund applications. Since the fact is not under dispute that the appellant is governed under the SEZ Scheme and procuring the services on the basis of Letter of Approval issued by the competent authority i.e. Approval Committee, denial of refund benefit on the ground of non-submission of Letter of Approval prior to the date of refund claim sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder statute have not extended the time limit for entertaining the refund application. Since the fact of use of input services for the purpose of SEZ operations was not alleged or denied by the department, as per the conditions of notification, the appellant should be entitled for the refund benefit. In this connection, I find that the ratio of the order/decision cited by the learned Advocate for the appellant squarely applicable to the facts of the present case, wherein this Tribunal has allowed the refund in respect of the claim applications filed beyond the period of one year. 5.4 In view of the foregoing discussions and analysis, I do not find any merits in the impugned order. Accordingly, after setting aside the same, the appeals are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
