TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (9) TMI 423
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... holding (centralized) registration with STC No. AADCM3491MST001, is engaged in providing various taxable services. They also have an SEZ Unit at Indore SEZ Phase-II, Pharma Zone, Pithampur, Dhar District MP-454775; and another at FDF Unit-10, Ramky Pharma City, Lemarthi, Parawada Mandal Visakhapatnam, AP- -531019. They filed a refund claim dated 26.10.2015 for Rs. 38,75,281/- claiming refund of Service tax paid on specified services in relation to authorized operations of the Indore SEZ Unit for the quarter Oct-2014-Dec 2014 in terms of Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013. The claim was adjudicated in the OIO No.07/2016, wherein the lower authority granted a refund of Rs. 53,132/- and rejected the claim to the extent of Rs. 38,12,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... without issuing a notice and without granting an opportunity of hearing, which is gross violation of principles of natural justice; that such rejection is legally unsustainable in terms of the rulings cited at Para A.2 of the grounds of appeal; * They paid the tax upstream instead of claiming ab initio exemption and filed the claim under the refund notification; that there is no error on their part; that they are eligible for refund of tax paid on specified services exclusively received and consumed for authorized -operations in the SEZ; * The Board clarified in Circular No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 that the service provider has the option to claim ab initio exemption on complying with the procedure prescribed; that so far as the SE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... entire case records. It is his submission that the list of authorised services required for their SEZ unit were Updated by the DGFT Authorities on 21.10.2014 wherein business support services were included as list of approved services while the appellant had paid the service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism on 6.10.2014. He would submit that in respect of Indore unit, the business support services were included in the list of approved services on 21.10.2014 and in respect of another unit on 9.4.2015. It is his submission that lower authorities had held that having paid the tax before the various services was included in the list of approved services, the CENVAT credit cannot be availed. Hence the refund claim has been rejected ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is also not in dispute that the refund claims are within the time limit as prescribed in the said rules and the notifications. In my considered view it is an admitted fact that appellant being an SEZ unit is not required to pay any service Tax either to service provider or under reverse charge mechanism and even if he pays the same, he is eligible for the refund of the service tax liability so discharged. The bone of contention in these appeals being that the service tax liability was discharged correctly and when it was discharged the said services were not mentioned in the list of approved services. In may view this cannot be a reason for rejection of refund claim as it is an avowed policy of the Govt of India that SEZ unit s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....relates to exemption Notification No. 4/2004 which did not incorporate the refund mechanism. On the other hand, in the case of Intas Pharma Ltd. v. CST reported in 2013 (32) S.T.R. 543 (Tri.-Ahd.), it was held that provisions of SEZ Act have overriding effect. Therefore, there appears to be no reason to deny the refund claim. 6.2 On the issue of time bar it is noted that Notification No. 9/2009 does give the authority to the Assistant Commissioner law to collect extension for filing of refund claim. The appellants were registered in 2009; thereafter took various approvals under SEZ Act and this being their first refund application, the same was filed beyond the six months period. They also needed time to ensure that the service provid....