2019 (8) TMI 966

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....up together for discussion and disposal. The details of both the appeals are given herein below: Appeal No. Period of Dispute Refund ST/20636/2019 January to March 2017 Rs. 64,240/- ST/20689/2019 April to June 2017 Rs. 77,409/- 2. For the sake of convenience, we take the facts from the appeal No.ST/20636/2019 because this appeal involves both the issues. 2.1 Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant had filed a refund claim of Rs. 64,240/- on 19.3.2018 for the quarter January 2017 to March 2017 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 1.7.2013. On verification of the claim, it was observed that the claim i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....20624/2019 and Final Order No.20625/2019 both dated 8.8.2019 wherein the refund has been allowed. He further submitted that the issues involved in these cases are also identical, therefore, the refund should be allowed by setting aside the impugned order. 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 material on record, I find that this Tribunal vide its Final Order No.20624/2019 and Final Order No.20625/2019 both dated 8.8.2019 has allowed the appeals of the appellant on identical grounds. It is pertinent to reproduce the said findings which are contained in para 6-7 of the said Final Order. "6. After considering the submissions of both the ....