TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 22
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entical and there is a common impugned order, all the three appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. The details of all the three appeals are given below: Appeal No. Period Amount ST/20907/2019 July 2016 to September 2016 Rs. 6,49,197/- ST/20908/2019 October 2016 to December 2016 Rs. 13,36,649/- ST/20909/2019 January 2017 to March 2017 Rs. 13,55,345/- Total Rs. 33,41,191/- Further, break-up of services on which refund has been rejected during the impugned period are given herein below:- Sl.No. Name of service Refund claimed Refund claimed % 1. Rent-a-cab Operator service Rs. 28,26,331/- 84.59 2. Security Agency Services Rs. 2,13,698/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with the present refund claims. Appellant has a centralized service tax registration for all its units (DTA and SEZ units) located at RMZ Infinity Tower C, 3rd Floor, Benniganahalli, Dooravaninagar, Bangalore. During the relevant period for the provision of output services, the appellant has procured various input services which were used for authorized operations within the SEZ units on payment of appropriate service tax and making payment of value and tax to the vendors. In terms of SEZ Notification No.12/2013-ST dt. 01/03/2013, appellant filed three applications in Form A along with relevant documents for refund of service tax and cesses paid on input services procured in relation to authorized operations carried in the SEZ units. On scr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n record and refund claims have been rejected by taking into account irrelevant consideration and materials. He further submitted that the impugned order has been passed based on assumptions, presumptions, conjectures and surmises and without considering and verifying the documents produced by the appellant before him. He further submitted that the SEZ provision being beneficial in nature and would prevail over anything which is inconsistent contained in any other legislation as provided under Section 51 of SEZ Act. He further submitted that the Commissioner(Appeals) has wrongly assumed that the specified services have been used for authorized operation as well as for operations of DTA units whereas the fact of the matter is that refund app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....EZ unit and therefore provisions of Rule 7 of CENVAT Credit Rules is not applicable because the appellant has not used the specified services for the operations in DTA units. Learned counsel further submitted that vide para 10 of the impugned order, the appellate authority has alleged that bank statement furnished by the appellant as a proof of payment to the input service provider does not refer to any specific invoice number and date and further the amount claimed do not tally with the bank statement submitted by the appellant and there is no correlation between the documents. To counter this finding, the learned counsel submitted that appellant submitted bank statements while filing the refund application with the learned original author....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....urns and refund is availed under the present refund claim application. Learned counsel also submitted that the appellant is entitled to interest under Section 11BB of the Central Excise Act read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994. Learned counsel also submitted that in the appellant's own case, the original authority has granted the refund in similar situations for the period April to June 2015 and the Order-in-Original dt. 29.07.2016 has also been produced on record. 5. On the other hand, the learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions of both sides and perusal of the material on record, I find that the impugned order has rejected the refund claims on th....