TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (3) TMI 810
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SEZ but used for supply of electricity in the domestic tariff area. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals filed by the Respondent therefore the present appeals filed by Revenue more or less on the same grounds on which the Adjudicating Authority denied the refund claim. 2. Shri S.K. Shukla, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that there is no dispute in the facts of the case that though the Respondent have setup a power plant for generation of electricity in SEZ at Mundra but the electricity generated by the said power plants were supplied in the domestic tariff area, therefore, the service received by the Respondent were not wholly consumed within the SEZ. Therefore, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly allowed the appeals. 3. Shri Hardik Modh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents reiterates the detailed submission filed in the written submission. He further submits that the same issue under the same set of facts has been considered by this Tribunal in a bunch of appeals and the Tribunal vide order No. A/10147-10187/2016 dated 02.02.2016 held that Respondent is eligible ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Service Tax. The learned Senior Advocate submits that they have not availed the option as per proviso to Para 2(a) and filed refund claim of Service Tax paid on the specified services. The contention of the Revenue is that the services were not wholly consumed within the SEZ and the refund shall be restricted as per Para 2(d) of the notification. The expression "who does not own or carry on any business other than the operations in the SEZ" in the Explanation (iii) of proviso to Para 2(a), and the expression "are not wholly consumed within SEZ, i.e., shared between authorized operation in SEZ Unit and Domestic Tariff Area (DTA) Unit" in Para 2(d), of the notification, if read harmoniously, make it clear that the expression "wholly consumed" referred to the in the Explanation, would be applicable to sharing of business between authorized operation in SEZ Unit and DTA Unit. Thus, it is required to be ascertained sharing of business of specified services between SEZ Unit and DTA Unit. On perusal of the grounds of appeal filed by Revenue, we do not find any averment that there is a DTA unit of the assessee and therefore, Para 2(d) of notification cannot be invoked. 16. On perusal o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pproval of BOA. The surplus electricity supplied in DTA as per Rule 47 of SEZ Rules, which cannot be treated as a business. There is no material available on record that the assessee has a DTA Unit, it cannot be construed that the assessee is carrying out business other than operations in SEZ. So, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue. 18. The "Introduction" of SEZ Act, 2006 stated that the objective of Special Economic Zones include making available goods and services free of taxes and duties supported by integrated infrastructure for export production, expeditious and single window approval mechanism and a package of incentives to attract foreign and domestic investments for promoting export-led growth. While the policy relating to the Special Economic Zones is contained in the Foreign Trade Policy, incentives and other facilities offered to the Special Economic Zone developer and units are implemented through various notifications and circulars issued by the concerned Ministries/ Departments. In the present case, notifications issued by Central Government as stated above, exempting the Service Tax on taxable services received by unit or develop....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g authority is totally unwarranted and cannot be sustained. The Tribunal in the case of Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. CCE & S.T. (LTU), Mumbai - 2013 (29) S.T.R. 393 (Tri.-Mum.), held that once the Approval Committee has given the nexus and the justification, it was totally unwarranted on the part of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority to go into this question and come to their own findings in the matter. It has been held as under :- "6.1 As regards the refund claim of Rs. 6,66,794/- which has been rejected on the ground that the services to which this amount pertains do not have direct nexus with the authorized operations undertaken by the appellant, this stand of the department is totally incorrect. The Approval Committee which has examined this issue has issued a specific certificate to the appellant indicating the various services received by the appellant and justification for use of such services in relation to authorized operations. The jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise is also a member of this Approval Committee. Once the Approval Committee has given the nexus and the justification, it was totally unwarranted on the part of the adjudica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted the refund claim on following issues :- S.N. Particulars Amount 1 M/s. Karnavati Aviation Pvt. Ltd. The Service of transport by air for domestic journey provided by is not covered under the approved service category of "Passengers embarking in India for International Journey". Before 1-7-2010 Rs. 73,67,550/- After 1-7-2010 Rs. 36,60,191/- 2 Reimbursement of expenses. Rs. 2,78,799/- 3 Certain services were not consumed in relation to authorized operation. Rs. 6,94,432/- 4 Refund rejected on the premise that supporting documents were not provided/No co-relation with the documents submitted. Rs. 14,81,515/- 5 Letter provided by GETCO is not a specified document under Rule 4A of Service Tax Rules. Rs. 6,386/- 6 Services wrongly classified by APL. Rs. 206/- 7 Certain service category on which refund has been claimed has not been approved and has been later approved via Notification 24-5-2012. Rs. 45,897/- 8 Services category are not approved. Rs. 10,437/- 22. The learned Senior Advocate submits that there is a subsequent development on these issues, which they have stated in ....