2021 (3) TMI 1007

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he ground that the appellant has failed to fulfill the conditions of Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellants are registered under Service Tax for providing taxable services viz. Information Technology Software Services. The appellant had filed a refund claim on 26.09.2016 for an amount of Rs. 62,69,973/- for the period October 2015 to December 2015 towards refund of service tax paid on various input services (specified services) set to have been used for authorized operations of the SEZ units during quarter in terms of Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 as amended by Notification No.07/2014-ST dated 11.07.2014, Notification No.02/2016-ST dated 03.02.2016 and ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r authorized operations. He further submitted that SEZ Act 2005 overrides the Finance Act 1994 and Notification issued under the said Act. He further submitted that Notification No.17/2011-ST dated 11.03.2011, Notification No.40/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 and Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 is only a mechanism to claim the refund of service tax paid by the assessee and it 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 provider of such services. He further submitted that the only test to be carried out shall be whether these services have been used for authorized operations and it is clearly eviden....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....authorized operation in the SEZ. Further, I find that not mentioning the said services in the Approved List is only a technical defect and it should not debar the substantive benefit to the assessee who has utilized those services for carrying out authorized operation. I also note that both the input services have been subsequently included by the Development Commissioner of SEZ in the List of default services. This issue has been considered by the Tribunal in number of cases and in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Mangalore Commissionerate Vs Mangalore SEZ Ltd. cited supra, the CESTAT has held as under: "The Government's intention is clear that the SEZ units should either not require to pay or if paid they are eligible f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 15/2009 merely contour the process by which the benefit of exemption/immunity to tax is operationalised. Notification Nos. 9/2009 and 15/2009 have provided a facilitative regime whereby a developer or units of SEZ, as recipients of taxable service are enabled the facility of claiming refund of Service Tax, remitted by taxable service providers in relation to the taxable services provided to a unit in a SEZ. On 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 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 pro....