2023 (10) TMI 1113 - AT - Service Tax

Refund Partially Allowed for SEZ Services Under Notification No. 09/2009-ST; Claim Denied for Invoice Discrepancies

Zydus Hospira Oncology Pvt Ltd Versus C.S.T. -Service Tax – Ahmedabad

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, confirming the appellant's entitlement to a refund for services used in SEZ operations under Notification No. ... Rejection of refund in respect of input services - out of pocket expenses collected by the service provider - rent-a-cab service - convention service - rejection of refund claim also on the ground that in invoice issued by the service provider the item code does not tally with one mentioned in the enclosed gate pass. Input services - out of pocket expenses collected by the service provider - rent-a-cab service - convention service - HELD THAT:- These services were received by the appellant even though outside the SEZ but these services are directly for use of the entire business activity of the appellant located in SEZ. It is not the case of the department that these services were used by any other person other than the appellant. Therefore, all these services were indeed used for the authorized operation of SEZ hence rightly eligible for refund under Notification No 09/2009-ST. Accordingly, the appellant is entitled for the refund in respect of these services. Rejection of refund on the ground that the item code between the invoice and the enclosed gate pass does tally - HELD THAT:- It is finding of the Commissioner ( Appeals ) that the appellant have not made any explanation to this discrepancy in their appeal. Moreover, in the present appeal also, no ground is made on this issue therefore, in absence of any explanation by the appellant any benefit cannot be given on this count. Accordingly, the rejection of refund claim of Rs. 3090/- is maintained. Appeal allowed in part. Issues involved: 1. Entitlement for refund claim under Notification No. 09/2009-ST for input services. 2. Rejection of refund claim based on discrepancies in item codes between invoice and gate pass.Entitlement for refund claim under Notification No. 09/2009-ST for input services: The appellant contended that services like out of pocket expenses, rent-a-cab service, and convention service were essential for authorized operation in the SEZ. The appellant argued that all services were received for SEZ operations, as the unit had no activities other than those in the SEZ. The appellant emphasized that all services were listed in the development Commissioner's approval list, further supporting their claim. The Tribunal found that these services were indeed utilized for the authorized SEZ operation of the appellant, making them eligible for refund under Notification No. 09/2009-ST.Rejection of refund claim based on discrepancies in item codes: Regarding the rejection of the claim due to item code discrepancies between the invoice and gate pass, the appellant argued that pre-authenticated challans were specific to units in the notified SEZ only, making it impractical for service providers to reference each challan in their invoices. The appellant cited relevant judgments to support their stance. However, the Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to provide any explanation for the discrepancy in their appeal. As a result, the rejection of the refund claim concerning the amount of Rs. 3090 was upheld due to the lack of clarification from the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, affirming the appellant's entitlement to the refund for services utilized in the SEZ operation while maintaining the rejection of the refund claim related to item code discrepancies.