TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (12) TMI 862
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of case are that appellants are engaged in the manufacture of Turbo Chargers and parts/ components/sub-assembly of Turbo Chargers in their unit located in Indore, SEZ Pithampur. Appellants are having LOA issued by Development Commissioner for undertaking authorized operation in Indore, SEZ Pithampur. 3. Appellants filed two refund claims- one filed on 04.09.2009 for amount Rs.1,94,559/- and second filed 18.02.2011 for amount Rs. 90,338/-. There refund claims were filed under the provisions of Notification 09/2009 dated 03.03.2009 (as amended) for taking refund of service tax paid on services stated to be utilized for authorized operations in SEZ territory. 4. These claims were examined by the Assistant/Dy. Commissioner and Show Cause Not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9 by which clause C of Para 1 of the Notification was substituted as under. 'C' The exemption claimed by developer or units of Special Economic Zone shall be provided by way of refund of service tax paid on specified service used in relation to authorized operation in the Special Economic Zone except for services wholly consumed other the Special Economic Zone. On account of this amendment made on 20.05.2009 vide Notification No. 15/2009, Commissioner (A) has not allowed the refund in respect of services wholly consumed in SEZ. It is the contention of the appellants that since no service tax is leviable on services wholly consumed in SEZ, they are entitled for refund Under Section 11B of the Act as made applicable to Service Tax under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cessity to discharge the service tax liability ab initio. That does not mean that in a case where service tax liability has been discharged, the appellant is not eligible or not entitled for refund of the service tax paid under the provision of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1994 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. If the appellant is eligible for refund under Section 11B, then the same cannot be denied on the ground that the claim was made under Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. In this case, there is no dispute that the services were provided in relation to the authorized operations of the appellant within the SEZ. From the records it is seen that the appellant has filed the refund claim within the time period provided for i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upkeep: Claim was rejected on the ground that proper invoices were not submitted by the appellants and in some case invoices are zerox copies and not legible copies. (iii) Telephone charges : In Telephone Bills of Bharti Airtel and Tata Tele service amount of service tax is not shown and in some cases invoices are in name of individuals and not in name of the appellants. (iv) Bus hire charges : Claim was rejected on the ground that there is not mention of PAN based service Tax Registration No (v) Staff welfare charges : Claim rejected on the ground that no invoice pertaining to food facility was submitted and in respect of these services it cannot be said to be used in relation to authorized operation of SEZ (vi) Professional charges : ....