2018 (8) TMI 1456

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rds. 2. The appellants herein are an SEZ unit and they filed refund claims in terms of Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 in respect of the service tax paid on services used for the authorized operations of SEZ unit as approved by the unit approval committee. With respect to the Order-in- Appeal No.VIZ-EXCUS-001-APP-192-17-18, the lower authority vide his Order-in-Original sanctioned refund claim of Rs. 3,24,100/- and rejected an amount of Rs. 22,00,615/- on the following grounds: (a) Rs. 4,58,892/- was filed beyond one year from the payment of service tax. (b) Rs. 14,237/- on the ground that the appeals were not related to their unit. (c) Rs. 17,27,486/- on the ground that the appellants have claimed refund against sci....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rovider, indicates the description of their service as Scientific/Technical consultancy services. As there is no dispute regarding the receipt of service and its utilization which are authorized operations and payment of service tax on the above, the rejection of refund is not justified. 4. As far as the Appeal Nos.ST/30461/2018 and ST/30473/2018 are concerned, the first appellate authority rejected refund of Rs. 67,980/- +Rs.3,39,900/- which were paid as retainership fee on the ground that the impugned service is not mentioned in the list approved by the UAC. The assessee asserts that the service rendered was actually consulting engineering service and the consultant indicated the nature of service as retainership service. 5. Learned....