TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 77
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the parties. 3. The issue in these appeals is whether the appellant-assessee a developer in the SEZ, who are fully exempt from payment of service tax under Section 26 (1)(e) read with 51 of SEZ Act, 2005, and whether denial of refund of service tax on the ground of limitation is justified. 4. To grant exemption to the units and developers in the SEZ Notification No. 40/2012-ST, which have been subsequently substituted by Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013. As per the notification, under Section 93(1) of Finance Act, the Central Government have granted exemption from payment of service tax leviable under Section 66B of the Finance Act on services received by a unit located in a SEZ (hereinafter either SEZ unit or Developer) a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... mentioned, the appellant filed periodical refund claims, which is as under:- Item No. Appeal No. Refund claimed SEZ Division Period Refund application dated 1 ST/52078/18 260323/- Developer unit 30.4.15 to 5.11.15 19.5.17 2 ST/52079/18 591979/- Module unit 31.7.15 to 4.8.16 19.5.17 3 ST/52080/18 1614604/- Poly unit 26.2.15 to 30.6.15 19.5.17 6. The Assistant Commissioner while processing the refund claim, found that the invoices submitted are more than twelve months old as on the date of filing of the refund application. Accordingly, it appeared to Revenue that under para 3(iii)(e) of Notification No. 12/2013, the refund is time barred and accordingly show cause not....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... iii) Mahindra Engineering Service Ltd. vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. Pune-I, 2015 (38) STR 841 (Tri. Mumbai). 9. In the matter of Intas Pharma Ltd., the SEZ unit had applied for refund of service tax in relation to specified input services. Revenue had issued show cause notice proposing to disallowance of refund claim to the extent of Rs. 56,650/- out of total refund claim of Rs. 1,30,410/-, as some of the services like Architect, Interior designing and Consulting Engineer services appeared to be not wholly consumed by the SEZ unit. The adjudicating authority had held that though the architect services are further consumed in the SEZ, and therefore fall beyond the date of Notification No. 15/2009-ST. The rejection of refund in part w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in relation to SEZ is a legislatively enjoined immunity. Therefore, any Service Tax paid/remitted by a service provider is liable to be refunded to the provider who has remitted Service Tax in relation to taxable services provided to a developer or unit, to carry on authorized operations in a SEZ. 9. However, the issue in this case is refund claimed by the petitioner as the recipient of the taxable service of Architect, Interior Decorator and Consulting Engineer, i.e. in respect of those services provided to the appellant by M/s. Venkataramanan Associates. Notification No. 9/2009-S.T., dated 3-3-2009 as earlier adverted to, enables claim of exemption by developers or units in SEZ by way of refund of Service Tax paid for services u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... this harmonious construction, the immunity to Service Tax provided under Section 7 or 26 of the 2005 Act cannot be so interpreted as to be eclipsed by the procedural prescriptions of Notification No. 9/2009 or 15/2009. These Notifications are calibrated to enable recipients of taxable services (exempt from liability to tax under the provisions 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/sub-paragraph 'c' of Notification No. 15/2009 cannot be inferred to have imposed any disability on the recipient of services consumed wholly within the SEZ,....