2022 (11) TMI 1278

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AL) Mrs. Dimple Gohil, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Rajesh K Agarwal, Superintendent (AR) for the Revenue. ORDER The brief facts of the case are that appellant have received services such as construction service, CHA Service in their SEZ on payment of service tax. Subsequently refund claim was filed under Notification No. 09/2009-ST as amended by 15/2009-ST. The Adjudicating Authori....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-ST. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the refund claims therefore the present appeals. 2. Ms. Dimple Gohil, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in respect of Appeal No. ST/447 and 448 of 2012, the Commissioner (Appeals) has admitted that the services were availed wholly within SEZ therefore, he should have allowed the refund. She submits that even tho....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ring on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. We find that refund of Rs. 77,669/- in Appeal No. ST/447/2012 was rejected on the ground that construction service was received wholly within the SEZ therefore refund is not governed by Notification No. 09/2009-ST. The conten....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....arious expenses but the same were in relation to CHA service by the CHA, hence, the refund cannot be rejected. 6. As regards refund of Rs. 5,548/- for the construction service received from Jay Khodiyar in relation to construction of trenching and pipelines, we find that the construction was exclusively for SEZ only. It is very obvious that a part of the same will be outside the premises of the....