TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 230X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s have not been approved by the Approval Committee of the SEZ and hence the appellants are not entitled to the refund. Even on merit the said services fall in the definition of insurance service and has also been approved by the Unit Approval Committee read with Ministry of Commerce Industry letter dated 16/09/2013 and subsequent letters dated 19/11/2013, 19/06/2014, 09/07/2014 which includes General Insurance Business Services at Sl. No. 26. Further, it is found that the General Insurance Business Services also form part of the default list of services specified by the Karnataka Special Economic Zone vide Circular No. 2/2014 dated 25/07/2014 - Further this Tribunal in the case of Barclays Global Service Centre Pvt. Ltd. [ 2018 (6) TMI 1080 - CESTAT MUMBAI ] held that Medical Insurance and Personal Accident Insurance are covered under the General Insurance Business. Also it has been consistently held by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case as well as in other cases that mere non-inclusion of services in the list of Unit Approval Committee shall not be a ground for rejection of refund claim. The provisions of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 has an overriding effect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es received and used for authorized operations of the SEZ Unit Service Tax of ₹ 47,68,507/- paid on specified services received and used for authorized operations of the SEZ Unit Order-in-Original No. Date 11/2018 dated 09/02/2018 12/2018 dated 09/02/2018 Order-in-Appeal No. Date 30/2019 CT dated 29/04/2019 31/2019 CT dated 29/04/2019 Amount rejected by OIA ₹ 14,33,825/- towards Health Insurance Services ₹ 29,02,376/- towards Health Insurance Services and ₹ 2,070/- towards Meal Passes 3. The Department entertained the view that the appellants are not entitled to the refund of service tax paid on the specified services on the ground that those services are not falling under the default list of services approved by the Development Commissioner. Show-cause notices were issued to the appellant and after following the due process, the original authority substantially allowed the refund claim but rejected the refund claim in both the appeals towards Health Insurance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Ministry of Commerce Industry letter No. D.12/25/2012-SEZ dated 19/09/2013 and subsequent letters dated 19/11/2013, 19/06/2014, 09/07/2014, the default list of services approved by the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce Industry includes General Insurance Business Services at Sl. No. 26. The General Insurance Business Services also form part of the default list of services specified by the Karnataka Special Economic Zone vide Circular No. 2/2014 dated 25/07/2014. Learned counsel for the appellant referred Advanced Law Lexicon by P. Ramanatha Iyer wherein General Insurance has been defined as under: General insurance Broad classification of insurance business which covers transportation insurance, property insurance, pecuniary insurance and liability insurance. Usually contracts are of one year s duration, with a new contract negotiated at renewal . Personal accident and sickness insurance and private medical insurance are also general insurance contracts. It is also known as general business (insurance). 5.1. He also submitted that as per the definition of General Insurance Business cited supra it can be inferred that Medical Insurance and Person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ones Act, 2005 read with Rule 31 of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 prescribed for exemption from payment of service tax on services received by the SEZ unit or developer. Further Section 51 of the SEZ Act provides for overriding effect of the SEZ Act over other laws in force. He also submitted that the Notification issued under the Finance Act, 1994 cannot curtail the benefits provided under Section 26 of the SEZ Act. In this regard, he relied upon the following decisions: GMR Aerospace Engineering Ltd. V. Union of India 2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 596 (A.P.) Cybercom Datamatics Information Solutions V. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-V 2017-VIL-1055-CESTAT-MUM-ST Cummins Technologies India v. CCE ST, Meerut-II 2018-VIL-351-CESTAT-DEL-ST Mahindra Engineering Service Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I 2014-VIL-486-CESTAT-MUM-ST 5.3. He further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is beyond the allegation levelled in the show-cause notice and hence cannot be sustained. For this purpose, he relied upon the decision in the matter of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai V. Toyo Engineering India Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
