2019 (7) TMI 211 - AT - Service Tax

Refund eligibility upheld for Service Tax on Real Estate Agent & Management Consultant Services before approval

The Tribunal allowed the appeal regarding the eligibility of refund for Service Tax paid on 'Real Estate Agent Service' and 'Management Consultant ... Refund of service tax paid - input services - Real Estate Agent Service - Management Consultant Service - HELD THAT:- In the appellant’s own case for the previous period in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE VERSUS M/S. MANGALORE SEZ LTD. [2016 (11) TMI 1103 - CESTAT BANGALORE], Commissioner (Appeals) has allowed the refund on the ground that approval was obtained subsequently from the Development Commissioner. The impugned order denying the refund of ₹ 1,10,250/- is not sustainable in law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:- Eligibility of refund of Service Tax paid on 'Real Estate Agent Service' and 'Management Consultant Service' prior to approval.Analysis:1. Background: The appellant, a company engaged in SEZ development, filed a refund application for Service Tax paid on specified services. The original authority rejected part of the refund claim related to 'Real Estate Agent Service' and 'Management Consultant Service.'2. Appellant's Submission: The appellant argued that the issue was the eligibility of refund for the amount paid before obtaining approval. They contended that prior approval was not a condition for refund under the relevant Notification. The appellant cited precedents to support their argument.3. Department's Defense: The Department defended the original authority's decision to reject the refund claim.4. Tribunal's Decision: After reviewing the submissions and records, the Tribunal focused on whether the appellant could claim a refund for the services in question. The Tribunal noted that in a previous case, the Commissioner (Appeals) allowed a refund when approval was obtained subsequently. The Tribunal found this precedent applicable to the present case. Additionally, the Tribunal considered the appellant's cited decisions as relevant. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the denial of the refund was not legally sustainable and allowed the appeal.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the decision to grant the refund appeal.