TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (3) TMI 230
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejected the refund claim of the appellant towards Health Insurance Services and towards Meal Passes. Since the issue involved in both the appeals is identical, therefore both the appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are a Private Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and are also registered as a SEZ unit and are providing taxable services falling under the category of "Information Technology Software Service, Business Consultancy Service. Appellants have filed refund claims for 4 quarters for the period April 2016 to June 2017 seeking refund of service tax paid on the specified input services used for provision of authorized operati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re not entitled to the refund of service tax paid on the specified services on the ground that those services are not falling under the default list of services approved by the Development Commissioner. Show-cause notices were issued to the appellant and after following the due process, the original authority substantially allowed the refund claim but rejected the refund claim in both the appeals towards Health Insurance Services in addition on Meal Passes in Appeal No. ST/20776/2019. Aggrieved by the order of the original authority, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in both the cases allowed the refund by following the decision of this Tribunal in the appellant's own case for the prior pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the services have been availed for authorized operation of SEZ unit. He further submitted that the original order has rejected the refund claim primarily on the ground that the said Insurance Services are not covered in the default list of services approved by the Unit Approval Committee but the impugned order has nowhere disputed the fact that the services received by the appellants have not been used for the authorized operations of its SEZ unit. He further submitted that in terms of the Uniform List of Services approved by the Unit Approval Committee read with Ministry of Commerce & Industry letter No. D.12/25/2012-SEZ dated 19/09/2013 and subsequent letters dated 19/11/2013, 19/06/2014, 09/07/2014, the default list of services approved ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the appellant's own case has rejected the refund claim pertaining to insurance services and Meal Passes primarily on the ground that the said services are not covered in the default list of services approved by the Unit Approval Committee as well as the fact that these services are specifically excluded from the definition of 'input services'. For this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: • Lowes Services India Pvt. Ltd. V. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore - 2019 (1) TMI 116-CESTAT Bangalore • Mast Global Business Services India Pvt. Ltd. V. CCT, Pune - 2018-VIL-601-CESTAT-BLR-ST 5.2. The learned counsel thereafter referred to Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01/07/2013 which provides ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification issued under the Finance Act, 1994 cannot curtail the benefits provided under Section 26 of the SEZ Act. In this regard, he relied upon the following decisions: • GMR Aerospace Engineering Ltd. V. Union of India - 2019 (31) G.S.T.L. 596 (A.P.) • Cybercom Datamatics Information Solutions V. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-V - 2017-VIL-1055-CESTAT-MUM-ST • Cummins Technologies India v. CCE & ST, Meerut-II - 2018-VIL-351-CESTAT-DEL-ST • Mahindra Engineering Service Ltd. V. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I - 2014-VIL-486-CESTAT-MUM-ST 5.3. He further submitted that the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is beyond the allegation levelled in the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Approval Committee of the SEZ and hence the appellants are not entitled to the refund. Further I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has accepted the fact that approval is merely a procedural formality and by relying upon the decision of the Tribunal in the appellant's own case cited supra, he has allowed the refund but further proceeded to reject the refund by resorting to exclusion Clause (C) in the definition of "input service" as provided in Rule 2(l) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. Hence, I find that both the impugned orders are not sustainable on this ground alone. Besides this, I find that even on merit the said services fall in the definition of 'insurance service' and has also been approved by the Unit Approv....