2019 (1) TMI 1440

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....filed a refund claim on 07/10/2016 for Rs. 44,33,982/- under Notification No.12/2013-St dt. 01/07/2013 with the lower authority claiming refund of service tax paid on various services received by them during the period from October 2015 to November 2015. During the scrutiny of the refund claim, certain discrepancies were noticed and the Revenue entertained a view that the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions of the Notification No.12/2013 dt. 01/07/2013 and also failed to produce proper and valid documents justifying the refund claim. On these discrepancies, a show-cause notice was issued and after following the due process, the original authority sanctioned Rs. 16,94,303/- and rejected the remaining amount of Rs. 27,39,679/- under th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... acts. e. Refund is available only in respect of claims which fulfill the conditions of the notification and an exemption notification has to be interpreted strictly. 2.3. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant has filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts, the documentary evidence and the judicial precedents. He further submitted that the impugned order is a nonspeaking order and all the submissions made by the appellant have not been considered thereby violating the principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the appellants hav....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....exemption shall be provided by way of refund of service tax paid on the specified services on which ab-initio exemption is admissible but not claimed by SEZ unit and used for the authorized operations. The learned counsel has referred to various conditions mentioned in Notification No.12/2013 and has submitted in the grounds of appeal that the said conditions were complied with by the appellant with detailed reasoning and has submitted that they have made submissions before the original authority also but the same was not considered and therefore the impugned order deserves to be set aside to the extent of rejecting the appellant's refund claim. He further submitted that the relevant letters of approval have been submitted even at the reply....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ad in a narrow manner to defeat the object of the notification. On all these submissions, he relied upon the following decisions:- a. Tieto Software Technolgies Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-III [2016(42) STR 689 (Tri. Mum.)] b. Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers Ltd. Vs. Deputy commissioner [1991(55) ELT 437 (SC)] c. Mylan Laboratories Ltd. Vs. CST, Hyderabad [2017-TIOL-3512- CESTAT-HYD] d. CCE, New Delhi Vs. Hari Chand Shri Gopal [2010(260) ELT 3 (SC)] e. Raghuvar (India) Ltd. Vs. CC(Import), Nhava Sheva [2007(213) ELT 340 (Tri. Mum.)] f. Shyamaraju & Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. UOI [2010(256) ELT 193 (Kar.)] g. Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCT, Bangalore North [Final Order No.21311/2018 dt. 04/09/2018] h. C....