TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1193X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew that the approval of input services by the approval committee is only a procedural requirement and due to this procedural lapse refund cannot be rejected. The issue is no longer res-integra in as much as it was held that due to non approval of input services refund cannot be rejected under Notification No. 15/2009 ST dated 20.05.2009. Accordingly, the refund is not liable to be rejected on this ground. As per the learned AR Commissioner (Appeals) has not given finding on the time bar therefore for this purpose the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to give finding on the issue of time bar. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner (Appeals). - Service Tax Appeal No. 400-401 of 2012 - A /12278-122 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he impugned order. Learned AR also pointed out that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not given any finding on the issue of time bar. 4. I have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. As regard the issue that whether the refund claim can be rejected on the ground that the input services on which the refund claim was made by SEZ is not approved by the approval committee. As per the facts of the present case the refund claim is pertaining to the period March to May, 2009 and the appellant had applied and the approval was given by the Approval Committee in September, 2009. Even though belatedly the facts remains that the input services were approved by the Approval committee. Without prejudice , ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No. 9/2009-S.T. but the service tax otherwise not required to be paid on the services consumed wholly within the SEZ. In the facts of the present case there is no dispute that the Service Tax was paid on such services which are otherwise exempted. Therefore the appellant is entitled for the refund but not under Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. but under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We therefore direct the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim of the appellant under the provisions of Section 11B of the Act. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order on the claim of the refund made by the appellant in the above terms. Harman Connected Services C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd the appellant who had paid the Service Tax for the services availed within SEZ should not be penalized for the same. Therefore, denying the eligible refund to the appellant on the ground that services availed by the appellant were not listed in the annexures II III is not justified. Therefore, I am inclined to allow the refund in respect of the above services. The amendment to the Notification No. 9/2009 by Notification No. 1/2009 was beneficial in nature so that the units do not have to first pay the service tax and then come forward for refund if entire services were wholly consumed with procedural prescriptions of Notification No. 9/2009 or 15/2009. These Notifications are calibrated to enable recip. 6.1 Further, in the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ause/sub-paragraph c‟ of Notification No. 15/2009 cannot be inferred to have imposed any disability on the recipient of services consumed wholly within the SEZ, from seeking refund of Service Tax remitted on such transactions, by the providers of such services. 6.2 The same analogy of Intas Pharma has been followed by the CESTAT Mumbai in the case of Reliance Industries Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai-I, cited supra. Further, in the case of Mahindra Engineering Service Ltd. v. CCE, Pune-I cited supra, CESTAT Mumbai has held as under : It is also noted that the SEZ Act, clearly provides under Section 50(1) that it will have overriding effect over the provisions of any other law. As both the SEZ Act and Service Tax Act, have been pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ratio of various decisions cited supra, I set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal of the appellant. 4.1 In view of the above decision and also with support of other decision cited by the learned counsel the issue is no longer res -integra in as much as it was held that due to non approval of input services refund cannot be rejected under Notification No. 15/2009 ST dated 20.05.2009. Accordingly, the refund is not liable to be rejected on this ground. As per the learned AR Commissioner (Appeals) has not given finding on the time bar therefore for this purpose the matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to give finding on the issue of time bar. 5. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
