AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (8) TMI 1374
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is a SEZ unit engaged in providing Information Technology Software Services, Business Auxiliary Services and Business Support Services. During the relevant period, the appellant procured various input services for authorized operations within the SEZ unit on payment of appropriate service tax. Thereafter vide Notification No.12/2013-ST dt. 01/07/2013, the Government, subject to the conditions stated therein, exempted the taxable services chargeable to tax under Section 66B of the Finance Act, 1994 received by a unit located in a SEZ or Developer of SEZ for the authorized operations, from the whole of the service tax, education cess and secondary and higher education cess leviable the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he records. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned orders are not sustainable in law as the same have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. She further submitted that the show-cause notices were issued to reject the refund claims solely on the grounds of non-submission of documents mentioned therein along with refund claims. She also submitted that there was no allegation of non-inclusion of disputed input services in the default list of services approved by the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Industry, Government of India. She further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner in the Orders-in-Original having accepted that the appellant has submitted all the required documents / ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....013(30) STR 487 (Tri. Ahmd.)] iii. Barclays Global Services Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCT, Pune-I [2018(362) ELT 889 (Tri. Mum.)]. 4.3. She further submitted that the copy of the invoices on which the refund is sought to be denied were submitted during the course of the personal hearing before the Commissioner(Appeals) and the said invoices are in respect of the following services received:- i. Front office services for the Bangalore SEZ ii. Concierge services for the Bangalore SEZ iii. Courier Services iv. Payroll processing v. Indirect tax compliances. 4.4. She further submitted that no doubt that the service provider has classified the aforesaid services under 'Business Auxiliary Services' and 'Management Consultancy Ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Revenue cannot travel beyond the show-cause notice as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ballarpur Industries Ltd. and also in Brindavan Bevarages Ltd.. I am of the considered view that the impugned order has travelled beyond the show-cause notice and therefore not sustainable. Further I find that the appellant is a SEZ unit and it has consumed the input services for rendering the output services. Further I find that in the case of Makers Mart cited supra, the Tribunal has held as under:- 5. As far as ground at Serial No. (i) above is concerned, we find that the issue is squarely covered vide judgment of CESTAT cited in Para 2 above. Para 4 said of the judgment is reproduced below : "4.We have considered the content....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ns of the 2005 Act), to claim refund of the Service Tax, wherever assessed and collected by Revenue or remitted otherwise by the taxable service provider, inadvertently. Considered in the light of this analysis, the substituted provisions, of clause/subparagraph of Notification No. 15/2009 cannot be inferred to have imposed any disability on the recipient of services consumed wholly within the SEZ, from seeking refund of Service Tax remitted on such transactions, by the providers of such services." 7. Further I find that the impugned order services though have been classified under BAS and Management Consultancy Services but in fact some of them are specifically mentioned in the approval list of services and are in the nature of BSS which....