2018 (10) TMI 544

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... service providers, they are being disposed of separately in this order on the factual matrix. 4. The appellant herein is an SEZ unit; took service tax registration as non-assessee category for claiming exemption from payment of service tax (by way of refund) on various taxable services received by them in relation to authorized operations in SEZ in terms of Notification No.40/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Appellant preferred refund claims before the lower authorities. The said refund claims were partly allowed and partly rejected. It is on record that appellant had list of services approved by Ministry of Commerce and Industry for authorized operations in SEZ unit. 5. In Appeal No.ST/30349/2018, the adjudicating authority as well as the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ity has also upheld the said Order-in-Original. 7. It is the claim of the learned counsel that the dispute is regarding only the documents filed in support of the online refund claims filed by the appellant. It is his submission that the payments to service providers were made on various dates in the period spread between April, 2012 to June, 2013 and the delay in filing the refund claims was spread from 0 months to 13 months. It is his submission that though adjudicating authority has condoned the delay up to 3 months, during the relevant period the refund claims were to be supported by proof of payment of service tax by the service providers to the Government of India which took time. It was submitted that this explanation was not acce....