TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 180
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 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 them during the period from January 2016 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce 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 relied upon the decision in the case of Mast Gl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 are not taken in the show-cause notices and therefore....