2014 (1) TMI 824

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the claim issue-wise herein below. (a) The first ground taken by the Revenue for rejecting the refund claim is that after substituting the provisions of Notification No.15/2009 providing for services without payment of service tax, the refund could not have been claimed. Appellant relies upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Intas Pharma Ltd. reported in 2013-TIOL-1091-CESTAT-AHM. to submit that in such cases also refund can be allowed if exemption has not been claimed. Learned AR is not able to produce any contrary decision. Therefore, it has to be held that on this ground refund claim could not have been rejected. (b) In respect of certain services, service providers had raised invoices in the address of the appella....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tegories by the service providers and these services are listed in the list of authorized services. If this is done, in my opinion even though invoice mentions the services as 'garden maintenance' and 'waste disposal', if service tax has been paid under the category of services listed in the services of the SEZ, benefit should be allowed. The learned Chartered Accountant also relies upon the decision of Tribunal in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. reported in 2012-TIOL-1034-CESTAT-MUM to support the claim that if the service is listed in the list of services, the concerned customs authorities cannot question the eligibility on the ground of nexus or otherwise. (d) Refund claim made with regard to the invoices issued by BPCL has....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o him they are eligible. The service in question is provided by C &F Agent and in my opinion, the taxable event has taken place prior to the issue of Notification and therefore, the refund prima facie could not be admissible. Therefore, as far this claim is concerned, the stand taken by the lower authorities is upheld. (f) In respect of one invoice, the learned Chartered Accountant fairly admits that they have submitted a wrong invoice and they would like to replace it with the proper invoice when the matter goes for reconsideration. This will be considered on merits by the original authority as regards the eligibility of refund on the portion of the replaced invoice. (g) In respect of two invoices, claim has been rejected on the grou....