TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (6) TMI 897
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uct. They discharged service tax on these input services under reverse charge mechanism. As per section 26(1)(e) of SEZ Act, the appellant is eligible for tax exemption on the input services provided to them by service providers located in DTA. They applied for refund claims on 13.09.2016 and 28.03.2018 for the respective periods as per Notification No.12/2013-ST, dated 01.07.2013. The original authority allowed part of the refund. Against the order of partial rejection of refund, the appellant filed appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The matter was for re-adjudication by Commissioner (Appeals). In de novo adjudication, the original authority held that the claims are beyond the period of limitation mentioned in the notification and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her, in terms of Section 51 of the SEZ Act, the provisions of the SEZ Act shall have overriding effect over the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Therefore, exemption from payment of Service Tax is subject to conditions specified under the SEZ Act and SEZ Rules only. Any additional conditions specified in the impugned notification cannot be a ground to deny exemption from payment of Service Tax. 3. Further that, there is no dispute on the fact that the services were used to carry on authorized operations or any other condition specified under the SEZ Act read with SEZ Rules have not been fulfilled by the appellant. The refund has been denied on the only ground that the claim is beyond the limitation prescribed unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Paragraph-6 that the rejection of refund claim stating that the refund is time-barred cannot sustain and allowed exemption to the assessee. Thus, the issue in the present case is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Hon'ble Tribunal. Reliance is also placed on the following decisions wherein the exemption which was denied on the ground that conditions of a notification issued under the Finance Act 1994 was not fulfilled, was subsequently allowed by the Hon'ble Tribunals by relying upon the decision in the case of M/s. GMR Aerospace: a. M/s.DLF Assets Pvt. Ltd.v. The Commissioner, [2020 (11) TMI 35 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] (Paragraph-18, 19 and 21) b. Lowe's Services India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d has to be filed within period of one year. In terms of section 26(1)(e) of SEZ Act, an assessee is eligible for exemption on taxes and duties. Such exemption can be availed ab initio, while procuring the input services or after the services are procured on payment of service tax by availing refund as per the Notification No.12/2013. The appellant has opted for applying for refund as per the notification. The department has rejected the refund claim stating that it is barred by limitation, as mentioned in the notification. The question as to whether the time-limit prescribed in the notification would prevail over sections 51 and 26(1)(e) of the SEZ Act was considered by the Hon'ble Telengana and Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s....