2019 (3) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... four appeals are taken up together for disposal. The details of various refund claims are given herein below: Appeal No. Period Order-in-Appeal Refund sanctioned Refund disallowed ST/21543/2017 Oct - Dec. 2014 Rs.1,44,818/- Rs.70,683/- ST/21544/2017 Jan. - Mar. 2015 Rs.1,22,371/- Rs1,43,057/- ST/21545/2017 Apr. - June 2015 Rs.2,64,113/- Rs.2,83,724/- ST/21546/2017 July - Dec. 2015 Rs.4,49,229/- Rs.12,50,052/- 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are registered with the 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 (SEZ) scheme for providing the IT enable....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at benefit of SEZ Act shall have overriding impact and as long as the input services are consumed within the SEZ, the refund is to be sanctioned to the assessee. For this submission, she relied upon the following decisions: * Reliance Ports & Terminals Ltd. vs. CCE: 2015 (40) STR 200 (Tri.-Ahmd.) * Mylan Laboratories Ltd. vs. CCE: 2017-TIOL-3512-CESTAT-HYD. 4.1 She also submitted that the immunity provided from service tax paid cannot be taken away by the procedural prescriptions of Notification. On this submission, she relied upon the following decisions: * Lowes Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCT, Bangalore: 2019 (1) TMI 180-CESTAT-Bangalore * Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCT, Pune: 2018 (9) TMI 258-CESTAT-B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and out this payment, the appellant has been granted a refund of Rs. 25,190/- as per the Order-in-Original dated 21.4.2016 and the balance amount of Rs. 17,877/- was rejected by the adjudicating authority. This submission of the learned counsel has a force in view of the challans and the break-up details given in the annexure and submitted that the rejection of refund of Rs. 17,723/- is wrong and the appellant is entitled to refund of this amount also. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of the record, I find that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled by this Tribunal in appellant's own case cited supra. Besides, this Tribu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-cause notices and therefore they have travelled beyond the show-cause notices which is not legally permissible in view of various decisions cited supra by the appellant. Further I find that the impugned order also violates the principles of natural justice because the appellant has not been given the reasonable opportunity to defend himself on the ground on which the refund claims have been rejected. The other grounds on which the refund claims have been rejected by the impugned order is that the appellant has not produced the approved list of specified input services from the UAC of SEZ which is a mandatory condition as per the Commissioner (Appeals). In reply to this argument, the learned counsel submitted that in view of the settled leg....