Appellant wins refund claim for service tax on CHA & engineering services under Section 11B

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, holding that their refund claim was not time-barred and that they were entitled to a refund of service tax paid on CHA and scientific engineering services. The Tribunal emphasized that services provided to SEZ units are deemed exports, making them eligible for a refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act. The appellant's claim was allowed based on previous Tribunal decisions, overturning the adjudication's denial of the refund claim.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the refund claim filed by the appellant is barred by limitation.
2. Whether the appellant is entitled to the service tax paid on CHA and scientific engineering services.

Analysis:
1. The appellant appealed against the rejection of their refund claim under notification No. 9/09, citing it as time-barred and claiming that CHA and scientific engineering services were not approved services for exemption. The appellant applied for approval on 10.6.2010, received it on 23.2.2011, and filed the refund claim on 22.2.2011 for the period from July to September 2010. The adjudication held the claim as beyond the prescribed time and excluded CHA and engineering services from approved services, denying the refund claim.

2. The appellant argued that their refund claim falls within the statutory period under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, citing the Tribunal's decision in Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. vs. CCE & ST, Mumbai. They contended that services provided to SEZ units are deemed as exports, entitling them to a refund. The respondent opposed, stating that the refund claim was time-barred under notification No. 9/09 and that CHA and engineering services were not approved for refund. They highlighted notification No. 15/2009, specifying services eligible for refund related to SEZ operations.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the issues, referencing the Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. case. It emphasized that services used in SEZ operations, even if wholly consumed within the SEZ, are eligible for refund under Section 11B. The Tribunal noted that services to SEZ units are deemed exports, aligning with SEZ Act provisions. It concluded that the appellant was entitled to the refund claim on both issues, based on previous Tribunal decisions. The impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.

---