2019 (2) TMI 588

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aj. Advocate For the Appellant Mr. Gopa Kumar, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: S.S GARG The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 28.06.2018 passed by the Commissioner (A) whereby the Commissioner (A) has rejected the refund of Rs. 911 being Service Tax claimed under 'Business Auxiliary Service' and upheld the order of the Original Authority to the extent of reje....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Ld. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law. He further submitted that rejection of the refund is contrary to the binding judicial precedent. He further submitted that the refund Notification is silent on the s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd on which the refund has been rejected is not legally sustainable because the said condition is not enshrined either in the Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 under which the SEZ unit operates or the SEZ Act/Rules applicable. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal in various decisions has categorically held that mere non-availability of approved list of services during the period of re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that the appellant being SEZ is entitled to refund of Service Tax paid on input services used for authorized operations. Further, I find that as per Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013, the only requirement is that the appellant is required to file the list of approved services which have been used by them for authorized operations. ....