9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder, all the three appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. The details of all the three appeals are given below: Appeal No. Period Amount ST/20907/2019 July 2016 to September 2016 Rs. 6,49,197/- ST/20908/2019 October 2016 to December 2016 Rs. 13,36,649/- ST/20909/2019 January 2017 to March 2017 Rs. 13,55,345/- Total Rs. 33,41,191/- Further, break-up of services on which refund has been rejected during the impugned period are given herein below:- Sl.No. Name of service Refund claimed Refund claimed % 1. Rent-a-cab Operator service Rs. 28,26,331/- 84.59 2. Security Agency Services Rs. 2,13,698/- 6.40 3. Works Contract Service Rs. 1,38,659/- 4.15 4. Accommodation services Rs. 98,069 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... angalore. During the relevant period for the provision of output services, the appellant has procured various input services which were used for authorized operations within the SEZ units on payment of appropriate service tax and making payment of value and tax to the vendors. In terms of SEZ Notification No.12/2013-ST dt. 01/03/2013, appellant filed three applications in Form A along with relevant documents for refund of service tax and cesses paid on input services procured in relation to authorized operations carried in the SEZ units. On scrutiny of the refund claims and documents submitted by the appellant for the disputed three quarters, three separate show-cause notices were issued to the appellant proposing to deny the refund claims, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ses and without considering and verifying the documents produced by the appellant before him. He further submitted that the SEZ provision being beneficial in nature and would prevail over anything which is inconsistent contained in any other legislation as provided under Section 51 of SEZ Act. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly assumed that the specified services have been used for authorized operation as well as for operations of DTA units whereas the fact of the matter is that refund application has been filed during the relevant period only with respect of SEZ of the firm. He further submitted that the fact that all the invoices for specified services are specifically issued and addressed to SEZ unit of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the impugned order, the appellate authority has alleged that bank statement furnished by the appellant as a proof of payment to the input service provider does not refer to any specific invoice number and date and further the amount claimed do not tally with the bank statement submitted by the appellant and there is no correlation between the documents. To counter this finding, the learned counsel submitted that appellant submitted bank statements while filing the refund application with the learned original authority along with correlation of each payment in the bank statement with the vendor invoices against which refund has been claimed but the same were not verified and considered by the Commissioner(Appeals). Learned counsel has sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, 1994. Learned counsel also submitted that in the appellant's own case, the original authority has granted the refund in similar situations for the period April to June 2015 and the Order-in-Original dt. 29.07.2016 has also been produced on record. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, I find that the impugned order has rejected the refund claims on the grounds that the appellant has violated the condition at para 3(III)(a), 3(III)(d) and Rule 5 of SEZ Notification No.12/2013-ST dt. 01/07/2013. Further, I find that the appellant has SEZ units as well as DTA units and had central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity with a direction to consider the statements, invoices and documents produced by the appellant in support of his claim and thereafter decide the refund application by passing a reasoned order. The original authority will also consider that in the appellant's own case for earlier period for the same services, the refund was granted vide Order-in-Original dt. 29/07/2016. In view of my above discussion, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the original authority to decide the refund claim application afresh after following the principles of natural justice. All the three appeals are disposed of by way of remand.
(Order was pronounced in Open Court on 30/06/2021) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
