2018 (11) TMI 1463

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Unit Approval Committee (UAC), Chennai, vide its LoAs has specified the services that are required by the appellant for the use in relation to its authorized operations as envisaged in Notification No. 09/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009. The fact that the appellant is a SEZ unit entitles the appellant to the refund of service taxes paid on the services used in relation to its authorized operations, in terms of Notification No. 09/2009 (supra), as amended by Notification No. 15/2009-ST dated 20.05.2009. 2.1 The appellant made claims for refund in respect of services carried out in relation to its authorized operations vide, Form-A dated 23.08.2010, which triggered the issuance of a Show Cause Notice dated 20.10.2010 by the Revenue proposing t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....who vide common Order-in-Appeal Nos. 27 to 29/2014 (M-III) dated 10.02.2014 upheld the Orders-in-Original thereby rejecting the appeal of the appellant. The first appellate authority has rejected the appeal inter alia on the grounds that the services ought to have been used in the authorized operations; the only authorized operation in the instant case was the manufacture of footwear and its sub-assemblies; that it was clear to him that export was not an 'authorized operations', but only a condition for allowing the authorized operation of manufacture of footwear; that mere approval by the Approval Committee of SEZ of some services as authorized services would not entail or make them eligible for any benefit of exemption or refund of servic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Act. 6.2 The above Notification also enshrines the conditions through a proviso as well as Sub-clauses (2) and (3) and admittedly, none of the lower authorities has whispered anywhere about the non-fulfilment of these conditions, by the appellant. 6.3 Further, the said Notification is amended vide Notification No. 15/2009 dated (supra). The LoA dated 14.09.2007 in No. 8/1/2007/CHEYYAR SEZ lists the authorized operations as under : "1. ITEMS OF MANUFACTURE: MANUFACTURE OF LEATHER SPORTS SHOES, SYNTHETIC SPORTS SHOES AND TEXTILE SPORTS SHOES" And this came to be amended by the very same Committee vide Letter of Amendment dated 08.07.2009 to include the additional items of manufacture to the following effect : "Manufactur....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d Order falls flat. 10. In the light of the above discussions, I find it relevant to discuss the ruling of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (supra) wherein after considering the rival contentions the Mumbai Bench has held as under : "6.1 As regards the refund claim of Rs. 6,66,794/- which has been rejected on the ground that the services to which this amount pertains do not have direct nexus with the authorized operations undertaken by the appellant, this stand of the department is totally incorrect. The Approval Committee which has examined this issue has issued a specific certificate to the appellant indicating the various services received by the appellant and justification for use of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... whole of the service tax leviable thereon under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. The refund procedure given below for operationalising the exemption applies to services which are procured from outside in respect of which the service tax liability has to be discharged first and the refund claim subsequently. In the case of services which are wholly consumed within the SEZ, there is no necessity to discharge the service tax liability ab initio. That does not mean that in a case where service tax liability has been discharged, the appellant is not eligible or not entitled for refund of the service tax paid under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. If the appellant is....