TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (5) TMI 713
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (Rs.) 1. GST- 06/Refund/61/AC/RJM/Intas/18-19 dtd. 4.12.2018 July to September, 2016 2,07,720/- 2. GST-06/Refund/48/AC/RJM/Intas/18-19 dtd. 10.10.2018 October to December, 2016 33,24,832/- 3. GST-06/Refund/49/AC/RJM/Intas/18-19 dtd. 10.10.2018 January to March, 2017 1,03,846/- 4. GST-06/Refund/54/AC/RJM/Intas/18-19 dtd. 23.10.2018 April to June, 2017 3,77,929/- 02. The appellants are located in SEZ and received some services for authorised operations. In terms of Notification No.12/2013-ST, they claimed refund of the service tax paid by the service provider. The learned counsel pointed out that some amount of refund has been sanctioned and balance rejected on the ground that some services ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssed 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." 2.1 It was argued by learned counsel that the SEZ Act allows duty free receipt of services required for the authorized operations. He pointed out that Notification No.12/2013-ST provides the route of refund of such service tax paid. He also pointed out that there is no requirement of approval of any specifi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in DILIP KUMAR & COMPANY- 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) to assert that the notification have to be read strictly. He pointed out that notification No. 12/2013-ST clearly restricts the exemption only to specified services approved by the approval committee. 04. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that in the appellant's own case vide order reported in 2013 (32) STR 543 (Tri-Ahmd.), the benefit of refund has been allowed in respect of services not listed as a specified services approved by the approval committee. In Para 11 of the said order, following has been observed :- 11. On true and fair construction of Notifications 9/2009 and 15/2009 issued under Section 93....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fund of Service Tax remitted on such transactions, by the providers of such services. It is seen that identical decisions have been made in the following decision of tribunal:- • MAKERS MART Vs. CCE &ST- 2016 (43) STR 309 (Tri-Del.) • ZYDUS HOSPIRA ONCOLOGY PVT. LTD. Vs.- 2013 (30) STR 487 (Tri.-Ahmd.) • HARMAN CONNECTED SERVICES CORPORATION INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. CCT- 2021 (49) GSTL 11 (Tri.-Bang.) • MAHINDRA ENGINEERING SERVICE LTD. Vs. CCE- 2015 (38) STR 841 (Tri.-Mum.) 4.1 On the contrary, learned AR has relied on the decision in the case of KOLLAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD (supra). It is seen that in the said case, the decisions of Division Bench on identical issues were not cited and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y Commissioner of Central Excise but by an Appellate Authority or the Court, then for the purpose of this Section the order made by such higher Appellate Authority or by the Court shall be deemed to be an order made under sub-section (2) of Section 11B of the Act. It is clear that the Explanation has nothing to do with the postponement of the date from which interest becomes payable under Section 11BB of the Act. Manifestly, interest under Section 11BB of the Act becomes payable, if on an expiry of a period of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund, the amount claimed is still not refunded. Thus, the only interpretation of Section 11BB that can be arrived at is that interest under the said Section becomes payabl....