2014 (12) TMI 1234

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n rejected. 2. I have perused the appeal papers with the assistance from the Ld Counsel for the Appellant and the Ld. AR. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the reason for rejection of refund was that the invoices received from the Appellants overseas entity viz. Tieto Finland, were defective as it did not indicate the category of service and the same were not signed. He further submits that, it was held in the impugned Orders-in-Appeal that the service in question was not approved by the Unit Approval Committee which is a mandatory requirement to avail refund under Notification 17/ 2011 -ST dated 01.03.2011. He further submits that Appellant had received certain services from the overseas entity Tieto Finland in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rious judicial pronouncements including in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs vs. MDS Switchgear Ltd. reported in 2008 (229) ELT 485 (SC). 3.3 The Ld Counsel further submitted that with respect to certain technical objections such as invoices not containing description of service, invoices not being signed, the provisions of service tax rules with respect to issue of invoices in specific format will apply only to service providers within the jurisdiction of service tax Act i.e. those who are located within India. In the present case the vendor of the Appellant being a group company located outside India, they are neither bound nor obliged to issue invoices as per the service tax rules in India. In any case, the Revenue ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eal with each of these issues in my order. 5.2 With respect to deficiency noted in the invoice, it is observed that the said invoices are issued by the vendor located outside India, who is not required to follow the procedure prescribed under the Service Tax Rules, 1994. 5.3 In any case, mere technical discrepancies in the invoices cannot be the ground for denying substantive benefit of refund available to an SEZ unit. It is the policy of the Government to exempt or refund the input taxes incurred by the SEZ Unit. Keeping this policy of the Government in mind and specifically in the light of sections 7 and section 51 of the SEZ Act, 2005, I find denial of refund claim on this ground is not sustainable. 5. 4 With respect to the second obj....