TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 1024X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the authorities below and the refund applications were not considered favourably by them - Since, the relevant factual aspects are required to be examined at the Original stage, the matter should go back to the Original Authority for examination of the approved list subsequently issued by the Development Commissioner and also to examine the judgements delivered on this ground by the judicial forums. Denial of the refund benefit on the ground that certain services have no nexus with the output service - HELD THAT:- The authorities below have not specifically denied the fact that the appellant is operating as a SEZ unit for manufacture of electronic motor and such operations were as per the guidelines framed under the SEZ policy. In other words, there is no contra findings by the authorities below that the appellants are also engaged in the business of supplying the manufactured goods within the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA ). Thus, under such circumstances, since the entire goods were manufactured by utilizing the disputed services, the nexus between the input and the output services cannot be questioned by the refund sanctioning authority. However, the original authority had not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority or the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Against rejection of the refund applications in the impugned orders passed by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants have preferred these appeals before the Tribunal. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted a chart in the form of a table, indicating the summary of the issues involved in these appeals and the ground for rejection of the refund benefit by the Learned Commissioner (Appeals). The contents in the said chart are extracted herein below: Summary of issues involved in the matters Sr. No. Appeal No. Period Order in Appeal No. Approval by Development Commissioner (Post Facto or Default List) No nexus with the Output Supply Time Limitation (Retrospective effect) Non-submission of Original Invoices etc (photocopies provided) 1 ST/90086/ 2018 Jan 11 to Jun 11 NA/GST CX/AIII/ MUM/7 8/18-19 dated 28 May 2018 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions, the authorities below have not considered the contents of the Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. dated 03.03.2009, Notification No. 17/2011-S.T., dated 01.03.2011 and Notification No. 12/2013-S.T., dated 01.07.2013 in their proper perspective. In this context, he submitted that with regard to the time line for submission of the refund application, the period of six months as per the original notification was extended for the period of twelve months and if there was any delay in filing the refund applications, the proper officer under the notification was empowered to condone such delay, which has admittedly not been done in the present case. With regard to post-facto approval obtained from the office of the Development Commissioner, the Learned Advocate submitted that the services were not initially listed in the approved list, which were subsequently considered favourably by the licensing authority, upon proper analysis of the fact that those services were required for carrying out the SEZ operation. Thus, he submitted that since, the licensing authority had opined for inclusion of the list of disputed services in the approved list at a subsequent stage, the same cannot be questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applications of the appellants were denied mainly on the following grounds: (i) Renting of Immovable Property Services , Club Association Membership Services and Waste Management Services are not included in the list of specified services approved by SEZ authorities. (ii) The Cleaning Services, Event Management Services and Business Support Services do not have nexus with the output services. (iii) No supporting documents i.e. invoices / details have been submitted. (iv) Common / shared input services utilised at both the premises i.e. within the SEZ and outside SEZ. 6.1 With regard to the services itemised in (i) above, the refund applications filed by the appellants were rejected on the ground that those disputed services were not included in the list of specified service approved by the SEZ authorities. In this context, I find that the competent authority under the SEZ Act, i.e. the Development Commissioner after consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellants, had included all those disputed services in the list subsequently approved by him. However, such approved list was not examined by the authorities below and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
