2019 (1) TMI 775

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....are having their manufacturing operations at Plot No.B-2, MIDC, Warora Growth Centre and operate as an SEZ unit for generation of electrical energy. The appellant was duly approved SEZ unit and operate under the SEZ Act and the rules made thereunder. They have Had filed seven refund claims for the period from May 2010 to October 2011, claiming refund of service tax paid on specified services received by them for authorized operations in SEZ during the above period, in accordance with Notification No.9/2009-ST dated 3.3.2009 as amended, and Notification No.17/2011-ST dated 1.3.2011. The said refund claims were rejected on various grounds including that the appellant had failed to establish nexus between the service received and provided for ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....indicating the value of service and service tax paid and their respective journal vouchers indicating payment of service charges to the service provided. Similarly, they have also placed invoice of one M/s. Avaneesh Enterprises providing services in the SEZ area along with their journal vouchers indicating payment of said service charges. 4. He has submitted that the refund claims of Rs. 72,88,595/- (appeal No. ST/86496/14) and Rs. 93,86,974/- (appeal No. ST/86501/14) were rejected on the ground of time bar. He has submitted that initially, they have filed the said refund claims within the time prescribed but withdrew the same. Later, they filed the refund application again, which was beyond six months. It is his contention that since th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the departmental representative to ascertain the fact whether supporting documents were produced or otherwise for verification by the department, as claimed by the appellant. However, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his report dated 20.12.2018, informed that the appellant has not submitted documents evidencing the receipt of services and utilization in the SEZ area, which has been disputed by the Ld. advocate for the appellant. On going through the sample documents submitted by the appellant, we find that the invoices were addressed to the appellant and payment of service tax is duly indicated in the said invoices and payment of service charges is entered in the journal voucher enclosed along with the invoices issued by the service pr....