TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (6) TMI 15
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty for fresh adjudication. Since the issue involved in all the appeals is common, therefore, all the appeals are being disposed of by this order. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a registered unit under the provisions of SEZ Act, 2005 and is engaged in the provision of Information Technology Software Services (ITSS) and Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) to its clients located across the globe. During the relevant periods, the appellant for its authorized operation, received specified services from suppliers registered under the Service Tax laws. Appellant, being SEZ unit, was eligible for exemption by way of refund in respect of services received for authorized operations by virtue of Notification No....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....order, appellant filed these appeals. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without taking into consideration the facts available on record and the legal provisions applicable. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard and thereby grossly violated the principles of natural justice. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:- i. Baraka Overseas Traders Vs. DGFT [2006(202) ELT 003 (SC)] ii. Mardia steel Ltd. Vs. CCE [2000(121) ELT 48 (Tri. Del.)] iii. Madhumilan Syntex Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI [1985(19) ELT 329 (MP)]....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by the appellant and therefore the said Orders-in-Original should not have found part of the Orders-in-original since the said orders do not belong to the appellant. Further 010s referred to in Sl.No.4, 5 & 6 stated that the appellant has filed refund claims for the said period under Notification No. 12/2013 dt. 01/07/2013. However, the appellant for the period referred against the order-in-original in sl. No. 4, 5, 6 had filed refund application under Notification No.40/2012-ST dt. 20/06/2012 and not under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dt. 01/07/2013. 6. Learned counsel further submitted that after the impugned order was passed, the appellant filed application seeking rectification of the impugned order by pointing out the clerical ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ese appeals under the notification mentioned in the impugned order. According to them, they filed the refund claim under notification No.40/2012-ST dt. 20/06/2012 and not under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dt. 01/07/2013. Further I find that the impugned order has considered all the refund claims under provisions of Rule 5 of CCR read with Notification No.5/2006-CE dt. 14/03/2006 whereas the appellants have not filed claim under Rule 5 of CCR. Rather they have filed the refund claims under Notification No. 12/2013 and the conditions prescribed in the said notifications are altogether different than the one which has been considered by the Commissioner(Appeals). It appears to me that the Commissioner(Appeals) has cut and paste the....