TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1789
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rder has rejected the refund claim of the appellant amounting to Rs. 11,65,509/- (Rs. Eleven Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Five Hundred Nine only). 2. Briefly stated the appellant is holding Service Tex registration No. AAACS0206PST010 and is also a member of Large Taxpayer Unit (LTU) Delhi, having membership No. LTU/DEL/038. The appellant had filed a refund claim of Rs. 54,93,071/- for the service tax paid by it on various services in respect of the appellant's unit, which is located in Special Economic Zone, (SEZ for short) Indore, under Notification No.40/2012-Service Tax dated 20.06.2012 for the period September, 2012 to January, 2013. After the scrutiny of the refund claim, the Assistant Commissioner sanctioned the refund amount of Rs. 43....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 3.1 He further submits that the impugned order did not consider the provisions of the Notification No. 40/2012-ST read with the Act of 2005 and upheld the rejection of refund claims, which is not sustainable. 3.2 Inputs service were used in November 2012 and refund was claimed during September to January 2013, during which the services so consumed were included in the list of approved service by the Development Commissioner of the SEZ and also the exhibition services was used for promoting the products manufactured by the appellant. 3.3 In this regard, it has also been submitted that the Approval Committee has accorded its approval on 05.07.2013, which is also acknowledged in the impugned order. Further, the copy of Bill raised by M/s Tr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d order. 7. We have considered the submissions made by the learned Advocate on behalf of appellant and the Learned Authorized Representative on behalf of Revenue. It is apparent from the impugned order and also from the order-in-original dated 3.04.2014 that the refund claim has been rejected on the ground of non approval of the list of service in terms of SEZ Act by the Development Committee. During the period for which claim has been made, nonetheless, the list was approved subsequently on 4.07.2013 by the Development Commissioner. The non approval of list of the services by the Development Commissioner will not be fatal to the refund claim, in view of decision of this Tribunal in Makers Mart (Supra), wherein it was held as under: 4. W....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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, from seeking refund of Service Tax remitted on such transactions, by the providers of such services. 8. The Notification No. 9/2009, 15/2009 and 17/2011 are preceding notifications to Notification No. 40/2012 dated 2.06.2012, under which the present refund claims have been filed. All these notifications pertains to SEZ....