TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 676X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice provider may not tax the amount or the service recipient being SEZ can claim refund. Mere technical discrepancy in the invoices cannot be the ground for denying substantive benefit of refund available to SEZ unit. It is the policy of the Government to exempt or refund the input tax incurred by the SEZ unit. Keeping the policy of the Government in mind and specifically in the light of section 7 and section 51 of the SEZ Act, 2005, it is found that denial of refund claim on this ground is not sustainable - Regarding re-conciliation of Service Tax payment with evidence of challans, it is found that the same was produced before the lower authority and the same is satisfactory. If the service recipient is a SEZ unit, they should pay Service Tax to the service provider and claim the refund of the amount. In the case in hand, the fact that the appellant is SEZ unit is not disputed and the receipt of the services is also not disputed as also the payment of Service Tax to the service provider. In the absence of any adverse findings on these issues, it is found that the appellant herein is eligible for claiming refund of the Service Tax paid by the service provider which is in co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble in terms of Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013, Notification No.17/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011 and Notification No.40/2012-S.Tax dated 20.06.2012, supra. 7. Being aggrieved, the appellant challenged the said Orders-in- Original in appeal before the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals). The impugned orders were passed ex parte, whereby, the appellant s appeals were rejected. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeals. For better appreciation of facts and the issues before us across the Appeals are tabled as below:- ST/78733/2018 ST/78736/2018 Refund claimed (under Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013) Rs.3,57,345 Rs.3,76,942 Relevant Period May 2014 Refund allowed Rs.1,04,234 Rs.1,50,936 In respect of rent-a-cab service availed from different travel agents Refund rejected Rs.2,53,111 Rs.2,26,606 In respect of banking a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 8.2 The impugned Orders are contrary to the provisions of Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules which categorically provides that in case the provider of taxable service is a banking company or a financial institution, including a non-banking financial company providing service to any person, an invoice, a bill or, as the case may be, challan shall include any document by whatever name called, whether or not serially numbered, and whether or not containing address of the person receiving taxable service but containing other information in such documents as required under this sub-rule . The impugned Order completely overlook the aforesaid mandate of Rule 4A ibid. 8.3 The impugned orders failed to appreciate that the appellant is a unit in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) and their entitlement to refund of service tax paid on eligible services cannot be disputed. Therefore, rejection of refund claim to the appellant, being a SEZ unit, is contrary to the avowed policy of the Central Government as contained in Section 7 51 of the SEZ Act, 2005. 8.4 The discrepancy pointed out by the Original Authority (blindly copied by the Appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... suffer from the infirmity of being a non-speaking orders, liable to be set aside. 11. Ld. Authorized Representative, appearing on behalf of the respondent department justifies the orders of the lower authorities. 12. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 13. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding rejection of refund claims, claimed by the Appellant. The Appellant claimed the refunds of the amount as being Service Tax paid on Banking and Other Financial Services in respect of services received in the SEZ unit. They claimed the benefit of Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013, Notification No.17/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011 and Notification No.40/2012-S.Tax dated 20.06.2012. The refunds were rejected by the lower authorities on the ground that along with the refund application, the said Refund Claim cannot be disallowed in this light. However, the documents submitted by the claimant relating to banks which are not signed by any the banks Authority the Computer Generate Advice of Foreign Import Bill Transaction Advice for CUSTID; 507991965/Foreign Remittance Advice for CUSTID; 507991965/Import Letter of Credit Issuance Advice/Debi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
