TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 834
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in respect of very same assessee, they are being disposed of by a common order. 3. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellant herein is a exporter of services situated in SEZ area. The appellant herein had received various input and input services for rendering the output services. Appellant filed various refund claims for the refund of the amount of Service Tax paid by the service provider which are wholly consumed within SEZ. It is the case of the Revenue that appellant could not have claimed the refund of the amounts of Service Tax paid on input services as appellant being an unit situated in SEZ area and service provider being entitled for exemption of the Servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) STR 393 (Tri.- Mumbai) in an identical issue has allowed the appeal of the assessee therein by regarding that the incidents of tax having been borne by the unit SEZ , they are eligible for such refund claims. As regards the rejection of refund claim for various reasons as cited herein above, the issue may be remanded back to the adjudicating authority to reconsider based upon evidence that may be allowed to be produced by them. 5. Learned Departmental Representative reiterates the findings of the lower authorities. 6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. 7. On perusal of records, we find that the issue involved in all these cases is rejection of the refund cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the service provider while rendering the services to the appellant and not disputed by the service provider. The Revenue Authorities have also rejected the refund claim on the ground that the refund claims are preferred beyond the period of six months. In our considered view, both these question are answered by the Tribunal in the judgment of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. We reproduce the ratio in very relevant paragraphs of the decision:- "6.2 Coming to the next question, whether in respect of the services which were wholly consumed and which were fully exempt from payment of duty, whether the appellants can be granted refund under Notification No. 9/2009-S.T., dated 3-3-2009 as amended by Notification No. 15/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 in Section 11B and the appellant has borne the incidence of taxation. 6.3 Services provided to a SEZ or unit in the SEZ is deemed as export as per the provisions of Section 2(m)(ii) of the SEZ Act, 2005 and as per Rule 31 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, the appellants are entitled for exemption from payment of service tax on the services which are used or provided to a unit in the SEZ. As per Section 51 of the said SEZ Act, the said pr....