TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 562
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aim for Rs. 4,82,207/- on 13.03.2017 for the quarter July-September 2016 being the Service Tax paid towards specified services received by them for authorized operations in the SEZ as per Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.7.2013. On verification of the claim, it was observed that: i) MSEZ has declared in the claim that the refund of Service Tax claimed is used exclusively for authorized operations in SEZ, but, actually has been used in common between SEZ and DTA. Further, the claim is not made in proportion to value of authorized operations to total turnover and also value of operation in DTA is not furnished. Amount involved is Rs. 4,82,207/- as per Para 3(III)(a) of Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.7.2013. ii) In respect of S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Eligibility of refund on input service of Rs. 4,54,088/- alleged to be common service for both SEZ and DTA unit (Mere supply to DTA). ii) Eligibility of refund of Rs. 2,33,325/- received prior to default list of service. iii) Eligibility of refund of Rs. 8,008/- with respect to rent-a-cab service. iv) Eligibility of refund of Rs. 3,237/- with respect to accommodation service. 4.1. He further submitted that as far as issue number one relating to eligibility of refund of Rs. 4,54,088/- is rejected by stating that the input services are commonly used for both SEZ and DTA operations, both the authorities have wrongly interpreted the terms of the Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013. He further submitted that previously for t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o DTA unit that is clearly recorded in the impugned order. He further submitted that the supply of water is an authorized operation and the supply of water in the DTA need not be mentioned explicitly. In support of his submission, he relied upon the decision in the case of Adani Powers Ltd. Vs Commissioner reported in 2016 (44) STR 146 (Tri. Ahmd). 4.2. With regard to second issue regarding eligibility of refund of Rs. 2,33,325/- received prior to the default list of service, Learned Consultant submitted that this issue is no more res integra and has been settled in appellants own case by this Tribunal vide its Final Order No. 20490/2019 dated 17.06.2019 wherein the refund has been allowed on identical facts. He further submitted that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble to the refund part of which is time barred. 6. After considering the submission of both the parties and perusal of the material on record, I find that in the present case refund for the quarter July 2016 to September 2016 amounting to Rs. 4,54,088/- has been rejected on the ground that the input services are commonly used for both SEZ and DTA operations. Further, I find that the appellant has submitted that in their own case for the period January to March 2015, Deputy Commissioner, Mangalore has allowed the refund claim on identical facts and the same has not been challenged by the Revenue and has attained finality. Further, I also find that the Commissioner, Mysore has also sanctioned the refund vide Order-in-Original dated 29.06.2....