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>SEZ unit wins service tax refund despite invoice address discrepancy when services actually consumed at SEZ facility</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Gurgaon-I Versus M/s Bravura Solutions India Pvt LLP</h3> Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Gurgaon-I Versus M/s Bravura Solutions India Pvt LLP - TMI Issues:The issues involved in the judgment are the rejection of a refund claim u/s Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.03.2013 for service tax paid on specified services used in relation to authorized operations in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit.Summary:The respondent, engaged in providing information technology software and business support services, filed a refund claim for service tax paid on specified services used in its SEZ unit. The refund claim was partially rejected by the refund sanctioning authority, leading to an appeal by the respondent before the Commissioner (Appeals). The rejection was based on the ground that invoices were addressed to the respondent's registered office, not the SEZ unit. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter back to the adjudicating authority, directing not to reject the claim based solely on the address discrepancy. The Department appealed this decision, and the respondent filed a cross objection.Upon hearing both parties, it was argued by the Department that input services were not consumed for authorized operations as invoices were addressed to the registered office. In response, the respondent contended that all services were used for SEZ operations, clarifying that their registered office was solely for correspondence purposes. Declarations from service providers confirmed services were consumed in the SEZ unit. Legal precedents were cited to support the claim that benefits should not be denied for procedural lapses.The Tribunal found that all input services were consumed in the SEZ unit, despite invoices being addressed to the registered office. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal upheld the respondent's claim, emphasizing that benefits should not be denied for procedural errors. The Department did not question the use of services, only the validity of invoices. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the respondent, allowing the refund claim for service tax paid on input services used in the SEZ unit.Therefore, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the respondent was granted the refund of service tax paid on input services used in their SEZ unit in Gurugram, Haryana.
TaxTMI 