Tribunal grants refund for SEZ input services, rejects common usage argument. Procedural lapses shouldn't bar refunds.

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's refund claim for input services used in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) based on the Adani Powers Ltd. case, rejecting the common usage argument. Refunds received before the default list of services were also upheld, emphasizing that procedural lapses should not bar refunds. Refunds for rent-a-cab and accommodation services were granted as the appellant did not have a Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) unit, rendering the rejections unsustainable. The Tribunal deemed the initial order unsustainable in law and ruled in favor of the appellant, granting consequential relief.

---

---

Issues:
1. Eligibility of refund on input service alleged to be common for both SEZ and DTA unit
2. Eligibility of refund received prior to default list of service
3. Eligibility of refund for rent-a-cab service
4. Eligibility of refund for accommodation service

Analysis:

Issue 1: Eligibility of refund on input service
The 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 list
The 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 service
The 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 service
Similar 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.

---