TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants refund for SEZ input services, rejects common usage argument. Procedural lapses shouldn't bar refunds.</h1> <h3>M/s Mangalore Sez Ltd Versus C.E,S. T-Commissioner Of Central Excise & Central Tax, Mangalore Commissionerate</h3> M/s Mangalore Sez Ltd Versus C.E,S. T-Commissioner Of Central Excise & Central Tax, Mangalore Commissionerate - TMI Issues:1. Eligibility of refund on input service alleged to be common for both SEZ and DTA unit2. Eligibility of refund received prior to default list of service3. Eligibility of refund for rent-a-cab service4. Eligibility of refund for accommodation serviceAnalysis:Issue 1: Eligibility of refund on input serviceThe appellant filed a refund claim for Service Tax paid towards specified services in SEZ. The claim was rejected due to common usage of services between SEZ and DTA, lack of prior approval for certain services, and non-payment to service providers. The appellant argued that the conditions of Notification No. 12/2013-ST were misinterpreted, citing a previous decision in their favor. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not have a DTA unit and only supplied to one, thus the conditions did not apply. Refund allowed based on Adani Powers Ltd. case.Issue 2: Eligibility of refund received prior to default listThe Tribunal referred to a previous order in the appellant's favor on identical facts, allowing the refund. The AR argued against the refund based on strict interpretation of Notification No. 12/2013-ST. The Tribunal upheld the refund, stating that denial based on a procedural lapse was not sustainable.Issue 3: Eligibility of refund for rent-a-cab serviceThe rejection of refund for rent-a-cab service was challenged by the appellant, arguing that as they did not have a DTA unit, the common usage finding was incorrect. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, holding that the rejection was not sustainable in law.Issue 4: Eligibility of refund for accommodation serviceSimilar to the rent-a-cab service, the rejection of refund for accommodation service was disputed by the appellant. The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, stating that since they only supplied to a DTA unit and did not have one themselves, the rejection was unjustified.In conclusion, the Tribunal found the impugned order unsustainable in law and allowed the appeal of the appellant, providing consequential relief. The judgment was delivered on 08/08/2019 by S.S Garg, Judicial Member of Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Bangalore.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
