TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 961
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efund claim on the ground that many services were consumed wholly with the SEZ, therefore, they are not entitled to refund of service tax. For some of the services the difference was noticed with respect to refund claim and payment made by the appellant. It was also contended that the appellant has contravened of condition of 2g(3) of Notification No. 9/09-ST dated 3.3.2009 which was amended by Notification No. 15/09-ST. 2. Sh. Dhaval Shal Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submit that the issue is no more in dispute as this Tribunal in various judgments held that even though there is non-compliance of Notification 15/09-ST, the assesse are entitled for the refund under the general provision of Section 11B of Central Excise....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....riginal the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order upheld the order in original and rejected the appeal. The Ld. Commissioner in his order contended that since the services in question were received by the appellants were consumed wholly within the SEZ the exemption under Notification No. 9/2009-ST is not available. Being aggrieved by the impugned order the appellants filed these appeals. 2. Shri. J.H.Motwani, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf o the appellants submits that even if it is accepted that all the services in respect of which the refund was rejected were consumed wholly within the SEZ then also exemption Notification No. 9/2009-ST. exempt all the services as the same were used ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Pvt Ltd V. -CCE.,Pune-lll 2015 (39) STR 267 (Tri.Mum) (x) Zydus Mayne Oncology Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE & Cus., Vapi-2010 (262) ELT 280 (Tri,-Ahmed) (xi) Credit Suisse Services India Pvt. Ltd Vs. CCE, Pune-l 2013-TIOL-1998-CESTAT-MUM. 3. Shri Dilip Shinde, Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. He further submits that the appellant have admittedly claimed the refund under Notification No. 9/2009-ST. as amended by Notification No. 15/2009-ST. The Services in respect of which the refund was claimed were consumed wholly within the Special Economic Zone. The exemption Notification No. 9/2009-ST is not application in respect of those services which we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the present case there is not dispute that the Service Tax was paid on such services which are otherwise exempted. Therefore the appellant is entitled for the refund but not under notification No. 9/2009-St but under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. We therefore direct the adjudicating authority to process the refund claim of the appellant under the provisions of Section 11B of the Act. The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order on the claim of the refund made by the appellant in the above terms." This issue has also been considered in the case of Intas Pharma Ltd. (supra) wherein this Tribunal has passed the following order: "7. We notice that the Special Econ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... who has remitted Service Tax in relation to taxable services provided to a developer or unit, to carry on authorized operations in a SEZ. 9. However, the issue in this case is refund claimed by the petitioner as the recipient of the taxable service of Architect, Interior Decorator and Consulting Engineer, i.e. in respect of those services provided to the appellant by M/s. Venkataramanan Associates. Notification No. 9/2009-S.T., dated 3-3-2009 as earlier adverted to, enables claim of exemption by developers or units in SEZ by way of refund of Service Tax paid for services used in relation to authorized operations in SEZ, insofar as the claim for refund is filed within six months or within such extended period as the Assistant Commi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al prescriptions of Notification No. 9/2009 or 15/2009. These Notifications are calibrated to enable recipients of taxable services (exempt from liability to tax under the provisions of the 2005 Act), to claim refund of the Service Tax, wherever assessed and collected by Revenue or remitted otherwise by the taxable service provider, inadvertently. Considered in the light of this analysis, the substituted provisions, of clause/sub-paragraph 'c' of Notification No. 15/2009 cannot be inferred to have imposed any disability on the recipient of services consumed wholly within the SEZ, from seeking refund of Service Tax remitted on such transactions, by the providers of such services. 12. Therefore, the rejection of the appellant's claim....