2018 (10) TMI 974

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the ground that they had provided services to the developer of SEZ and the services were consumed in the SEZ itself, hence the services provided by them were not liable to service tax. They had paid service tax erroneously which deserves to be refunded. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claim on the ground of merit as well as unjust enrichment. The adjudicating authority contended that the approval of Co-developer agreement was issued on 28.01.2008 whereas the services provided during period August 2007 to December 2007. During the said period there was no approval, therefore, there was no exemption for payment of service tax. On the issue of unjust enrichment, the adjudicating authority contended that since the appellant shown....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CCE 2014 (311) ELT 401 (T) • CCE Vs. Modest Infrastructure Ltd 2011 (24) STR 369 (T) • CCE Vs. Modest Infrastructure Ltd 2013 (31) STR 650 (Guj.) • Shri Nutan Shah Vs. CCE 2015-TIOL-1541-CESTAT-AHM • Reliance Industries Ltd Vs. CCE 2016 (41) STR 465 (T) 3. Sh. K.J. Kinariwala Ld. Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the only reason for rejection of refund claim by the lower authority is that at the time of rendering the service by the appellant, the Co-developer had no approval as a Codeveloper of SEZ, the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....receivable in the balance sheet, however, the balance sheet was not produced. Therefore, the adjudicating authority before sanction of the refund claim must verify the balance sheet that whether the amount of refund is shown as receivable on the asset side in the balance sheet, if it is found as receivable, the refund cannot be hit by unjust enrichment. As per our above discussion the appeal is allowed in above terms. (Pronounced in the open court on 11.10.2018) ============= Document 1 To Sir, No 12/14/2006 EP/ Government of India Ministry of Commerce & Industry Department of Commerce (SEZ Section) M/s. RGA Software Systems Private Limited No. 8, Dimple Court, Shakespeare Sarani Kolkata-700017 (Fax:....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ove, in the IT/ITES Special Economic Zone of Primal Projects Private Limited in Document 2 of 1 (iv) (V) (vi) (vii) made there-under. terms of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and the rules and the orders The Co developer shall execute Bond-cum-Legal Undertaking as required under the Special Economic Zone Rules, 2006 for the authorised operations. The Co-developer shall obtain the required approval from various statutory authorities under relevant statutes and regulations of the Government of India and the State Government and local bodies. The project shall be implemented and operated in terms of the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and the rules and orders made ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....intenance of Special Economic Zone. Based on the activities approved by the Board, the Co-developer shall be entitled for duty free import or domestic procurement of goods for the approved activities after the Special Economic Zone has been notified. (xiv) The authorized operations shall be carried out in terms of the parameters laid down in the Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 and the rules and orders made there-under and in accordance with the proposal approved herein. (xv) No duty free goods shall be available for personal use of, or consumption by officials, workers, staff or owners of the Unit or Developer. (xvi) Normally, no extension of validity period of three years for implementation ....