TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 713X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t listed as a specified services in the list approved by the Approval Committee. Interest on delay in payment of refund in terms of Section 11BB - HELD THAT:- There is no specific mechanism provided for notification No. 12/2013-ST. Consequently, all these refund would be governed by Section 11B and therefore, the appellant would be entitle to interest in terms of Section 11BB. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No.12749-12752 of 2019 - A/10512-10515 /2022 - Dated:- 12-5-2022 - MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate for the Appellant Shri J A Patel, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent ORDER The appeals are filed by M/s. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n such service were allowed on the following grounds:- 11 . On true and fair construction of Notifications 9/2009 and 15/2009 issued under Section 93(1) of the Act, considered in the light of the overarching provisions of Sections 7 and 26(e) of the 2005 Act, the conclusion appears compelling that neither Notification 9/2009 nor 15/2009 disentitle immunity to Service Tax enjoined by the provisions of the 2005 Act. It therefore appears that Notification Nos. 9/2009 and 15/2009 merely contour the process by which the benefit of exemption/immunity to tax is operationalised. Notification Nos. 9/2009 and 15/2009 have provided a facilitative regime whereby a developer or units of SEZ, as recipients of taxable service are enabled the facilit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the SEZ Act provides that the provisions of the act would have overriding effect on any other law for the time being in force. He pointed out that Rule 31 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 grants exemption from service tax on admissible services rendered to the Developer or an unit by way of any service provider for the authorized operations in SEZ. He pointed out that this provision have been interpreted by Tribunal in the following cases:- MAKERS MART Vs. CCE ST- 2016 (43) STR 309 (Tri-Del.) ZYDUS HOSPIRA ONCOLOGY PVT. LTD. Vs.- 2013 (30) STR 487 (Tri.-Ahmd.) HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. CCT- 2021 (49) GSTL 11 (Tri.-Bang.) MAHINDRA ENGINEERING SERVICE LTD. Vs. CCE- 2015 (38) STR 841 (Tri.-Mum.) 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions of the 2005 Act. It therefore appears that Notification Nos. 9/2009 and 15/2009 merely contour the process by which the benefit of exemption/immunity to tax is operationalised. Notification Nos. 9/2009 and 15/2009 have provided a facilitative regime whereby a developer or units of SEZ, as recipients of taxable service are enabled the facility of claiming refund of Service Tax, remitted by taxable service providers in relation to the taxable services provided to a unit in a SEZ. On this harmonious construction, the immunity to Service Tax provided under Section 7 or 26 of the 2005 Act cannot be so interpreted as to be eclipsed the procedural prescriptions of Notification No. 9/2009 or 15/2009. These Notifications are calibrated t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them for the authorized operations even if, such services are not listed as a specified services in the list approved by the Approval Committee. 4.3 The appellants have also sought interest on delay in payment of refund in terms of Section 11BB. The learned counsel has relied on the decision of the RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD.- 2011 (273) ELT 3 (SC), in the said decision following has been observed :- 9. It is manifest from the afore-extracted provisions that Section 11BB of the Act comes into play only after an order for refund has been made under Section 11B of the Act. Section 11BB of the Act lays down that in case any duty paid is found refundable and if the duty is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le. 10 . It is a well settled proposition of law that a fiscal legislation has to be construed strictly and one has to look merely at what is said in the relevant provision; there is nothing to be read in; nothing to be implied and there is no room for any intendment. [See: Cape Brandy Syndicate v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, [1921] 1 K.B. 64 and Ajmera Housing Corporation Anr. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2010) 8 SCC 739]. 4.4 In the instant case, I notice that there is no specific mechanism provided for notification No. 12/2013-ST. Consequently, all these refund would be governed by Section 11B and therefore, the appellant would be entitle to interest in terms of Section 11BB in terms of decision of Hon ble Apex Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
