TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 226X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2022 (6) TMI 821 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that keeping in view of the intention of the Government in enacting the SEZ Act and giving special fiscal concessions SEZs, I am of the considered opinion that this is only a procedural and is not a mandatory condition as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). Further the decisions relied upon by the appellant clearly held that the SEZ Act has an overriding effect over other laws. Therefore this ground on the basis of which refund claims have been rejected is not tenable in law. Denial of claim for refund against invoices which contains has been addressed to Appellant s Unit outside the SEZ but has been consumed within the SEZ - HELD THAT:- The matter was remanded for consideration whether ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... their own case by Final Order Nos.70277-70280/2023 dated 21 December, 2023. The Tribunal has considered both the issues involved in the matter and the second matter was remanded back to the Original Authority to decide the matter in the light of observations as made in the said order. 1.3 Learned Authorised Representative reiterates the findings recorded in the orders of the lower authorities. 2.1 I have considered the impugned orders along with the submissions made in appeal and during the course of argument. 2.2 I find that the issue is squarely covered by the Final Order Nos.70277-70280/2023 dated 21 December, 2023 passed by this Tribunal. 2.3 In para no.3.3 3.4 the first issue whether refund should be admissible in respect of the servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore keeping in view of the intention of the Government in enacting the SEZ Act and giving special fiscal concessions SEZs, I am of the considered opinion that this is only a procedural and is not a mandatory condition as held by the Commissioner (Appeals). Further the decisions relied upon by the appellant clearly held that the SEZ Act has an overriding effect over other laws. Therefore this ground on the basis of which refund claims have been rejected is not tenable in low. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2022 (64) GSTL 216 (T-Ahmd)] 4. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that in the appellant s own case vide order reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 543 (Tri. - Ahmd.), the benefit of refund has been allowed in respect of services not l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... analysis, the substituted provisions, of clause/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. It is seen that identical decisions have been made in the following decision of Tribunal :- Makers Mart v. CCE ST - 2016 (43) S.T.R. 309 (Tri. - Del.) Zydus Hospira Oncology Pvt. Ltd. - 2013 (30) S.T.R. 487 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Harman Connected Services Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCT - 2021 (49) G.S.T.L. 11 (Tri. - Bang.) Mahindra Engineering Service Ltd. v. CCE - 2015 (38) S.T.R. 841 (Tri. - Mum.) 4.1 On the contrary, Learned AR has rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
