TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 22X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, SEZ unit, where it is found that these services have been specifically covered as input services. For each violation alleged by the Revenue, appellant have produced documentary proof in the form of invoices, bank statements and other records but the same has not been considered by the authorities below. Appellant has produced all those documentary proof along with the appeal paper book and some of the documents have also been produced along with written submissions at the time of hearing of these appeals. Since those documents and statements have not been considered in the impugned order by the learned Commissioner(Appeals) and the Commissioner(Appeals) has come to the finding which is not based on verification of the documents. The matter needs to be remanded to the original authority 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 - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. 20907 - 20909 of 2019 - Final Order No.20355 to 20357/2021 - Dated:- 30-6-2021 - SHRI S.S GARG, J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Service ₹ 6,633/- 0.20 10. Telecommunication services ₹ 2,324/- 0.06 Grand total ₹ 33,41,191/- 100 2.1. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant, inter-alia, engaged in providing Business Support Services (BSS) and Information Technology Support Services (ITSS) from its following SEZ units to its clients located outside India as well as to the clients located within India:- i. EYGBS (India) Pvt. Ltd., Athulya, Infopark, SEZ Kakkanad, Kochi ii. EYGBS (India) Pvt. Ltd., Carnival, Infopark, SEZ Kakkanad, Kochi iii. EYGBS (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kinfra Film and Video Park, Kazhakuttom, Trivandrum iv. EYGBS (India) Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon, Infospace Ltd. IT/ITES Village, Dundahera, Gurgaon. 2.2. Appellant exports its substantial output services for which consideration is received in convertible foreign exchange and the said services qualify as export in terms of Rule 6A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Appellant also has DTA units which have no connection w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esumptions, conjectures and surmises 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 appellant makes it clear that the services are used for authorized operation of SEZ and not used by DTA unit but the appellate authority without properly verifying all the documents on record has wrongly come to the conclusion that specified services have been used for DTA unit as well SEZ. Learned counsel has also produced sample copies of various invoices of input services which is annexed as Annexure 6 of appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovider. He further submitted that the appellants had made the payment to the vendors after complying with the statutory obligation under the Income Tax Act of deducting tax at source and correlated with the bank statements but the statements were also disregarded by the Commissioner(Appeals). Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant has also not violated condition at para 5 of the SEZ Notification which means that the appellant has proved that it has not claimed cenvat credit on specified services whereas they claimed refund. He further submitted that the appellant submitted invoice-wise details of procurement clearly distinguishing the invoices against which credit is availed in ST3 returns and refund is availed under the present refund claim application. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant is entitled to interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
