TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Services and rejected the claim of Rs. 1,54,522/- (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Four Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Two only) and partly allowed the appeal of the appellant. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are registered with Service Tax Department for providing Business Support Services and Information Technology Software Services. The appellant is also a registered SEZ unit under the Special Economic Zone scheme for providing the IT enabled services. For rendering the above services, the appellant had received and used various input services on which service tax was paid. The appellant had filed refund claims, seeking refund of service tax paid on the specified input services used for the services exported by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... SEZ units are exempt from payment of service tax. He further submitted that Courts have consistently held that the benefit of SEZ Act shall have overriding impact as long as input services are consumed within the SEZ. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: a. Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. V. CCE & ST, Mumbai - 2013 (29) S.T.R. 393 (Tri.-Mum.) b. Reliance Ports & Terminals Ltd. V. Commr. of C.E & S.T., Rajkot - 2015 (40) S.T.R. 200 (Tri.-Ahmd.) c. Mylan Laboratories Ltd. V. Commissioner of Service Tax, Hyderabad - 2017-TIOL-3512-CESTAT-HYD. 3.1. He further submitted that the immunity provided from service tax paid cannot be taken away by the procedural prescriptions of Notification. For this submission, he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rized operations. This issue is no more res integra and has been settled by various decisions of the Tribunal. Further I find that in the case of Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd., this Tribunal on identical facts has held in para 6.1. as under: "6.1. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of material on record, I find that the show-cause notices were issued on two grounds viz. certain input services are not covered in the definition of input service under Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules and hence not eligible and secondly non-submission of documents required to process the claims. Further I find that Order-in-Original as well as impugned order, both have rejected the refund claims on other grounds which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5.1. Further I find that in the case of Photon Infotech Pvt. Ltd. cited supra, this Tribunal has held in para 7 as under: "7. After considering the grounds of appeals and written submissions, I find that the adjudicating authority has not disputed the fact of receipt of these services in the SEZ unit and the same are consumed by the appellant unit and further the issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by the decision in the case of Zydus Hospira Oncology Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2013 (30) STR 487 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]. Further I also find that non-inclusion of the services in the list of services approved by the Development Commissioner for authorized operations is just a procedural lapse which cannot be considered as a grou....