2020 (2) TMI 230

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed Order') passed by the Commissioner(Appeals), GST, CX & Customs, Bhubaneswar (referred to hereunder as 'the Ld Commissioner(A)'), whereby the Appellant's claim for refund of Service Tax amounting to Rs. 1,31,309/-, as disallowed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Sambalpur-I Division, Sambalpur vide Order-in-Original No.R-32/Refund/S.Tax/(32/2016)/SBP-1/2016 Dated 05.12.2016, was upheld by way of rejecting the Appellant's appeal. 2. The brief facts leading to filing of the present appeal are that during the relevant period, the Appellant was a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Unit, duly declared by the jurisdictional Development Commissioner, in the notified SEZ area, for manufacture of Aluminium products.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....016 in appeal before the learned Commissioner(Appeals). The impugned order was passed ex parte, whereby, the appellant's appeal was rejected. Being aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 7. Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the impugned order is an exemplary case of total non-application of mind and gross abuse of power with utter disregard to the provisions of the statute and the Notification issued there-under with utmost apathy to the consequential prejudice caused to bona fide tax payers and the effect thereof on the public in general. The Learned Advocate further submits that the findings of the learned Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order are verbatim reproduction in b....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e issue is regarding rejection of refund claim of Rs. 1,31,903/- claimed by the appellant. The  appellant claimed the refund of the amount as being Service Tax paid on "Banking and Other Financial Services" in respect of services received in the SEZ unit. They claimed the benefit of Notification No.40/2012-ST dated 26.06.2012. The refund was rejected by the lower authorities on two grounds ; (1) the invoices have been addressed to M/s.Vedanta Aluminium Ltd., 232, Solitaire Corporate Park Chakala Andheri (East), India, whereas the refund claim has been filed by M/s.VAL (SEZ Unit) (presently known as M/s.Vedanta Ltd.) (Burkamunda, Jharsuguda (Odisha), Pin-768201). Since the so called invoices are in the name of their Corporate Office, th....