Just a moment...

Top
Help
Upgrade to AI Search

We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:

1. Basic
Quick overview summary answering your query with referencesCategory-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI

2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
Detailed report covering:
     -   Overview Summary
     -   Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
     -   Relevant Case Laws
     -   Tariff / Classification / HSN
     -   Expert views from TaxTMI
     -   Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy

• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:

Explore AI Search

Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2023 (2) TMI 731

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le for refund of Service Tax paid on specified services which are wholly consumed within the SEZ as per notification no. 9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 as amended vide notification no.15/2009-ST dated 20.05.2009? 3. The facts leading to the filing of the instant appeal are stated in brief as follows. The appellant herein filed refund claim of Rs. 6,83,442/- for the period from 15th December 2009 to 30th June 2010 for Service Tax paid on the specified service used in relation to the authorised operations in the SEZ under notification (supra). The adjudicating authority vide order-inoriginal dated 27.12.2010 sanctioned refund claim amounting to Rs. 4,88,315/- and rejected the claim for the amount of Rs. 1,95,127/-. Out of the total rejected clai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ia Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Pune III 2015-TIOL-82-CESTAT-MUM and one decision in their own case on similar issue in the matter of M/s. Vishay Semiconductor India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CC,GST, Mumbai Central which was decided by this Tribunal vide final order no. A/86782/2019 dated 20.09.2019. Per contra learned Authorised Representative appearing on behalf of Revenue supported the findings recorded in the impugned order and placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of Everest Industries Ltd. vs. CCE Meerut I 2013 (31) STR 189 (Tri-Del). 5. Heard rival submissions and perused the case records, synopsis/written submission and case laws placed on record by the respective sides. In order to appreciate the issue involved herein, it is bet....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ically provides that all services imported into the SEZ to carry out authorised operation in SEZ shall be exempted. Further in terms of section 51 of the SEZ Act the provisions of the SEZ Act shall have overriding effect over all provisions of any other law for the time being in force and it is settled legal principle that any rule or notification cannot override the Act. Otherwise also the issue involved herein is no longer res integra in view of the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of EON Kharadi Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in which the Tribunal on an identical issue while deciding in favour of assessee held as under:- "4.1 I note that the SEZ Act, 2005, under Section 26(i)(e), provides that all services imported into the SE....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad - 2013 (32) S.T.R. 543 (Tri.-Ahmd.). 4.3 A point was raised by the learned AR that the appellants are managing various units outside of SEZ who provide services to the appellants. And by paying Service Tax on the service provided to the SEZ unit, they managed to encash unutilized Cenvat credit through the pattern of first paying Service Tax in their unit outside of SEZ and then enabling the SEZ unit to take refund. I find that such practice cannot be held to be violating the legal framework under which recipient unit in SEZ cannot be made to suffer tax incidence. It was also argued by the learned AR that in the case of Everest Industries Ltd. [2013 (31) S.T.R. 189 (Tri.-Del.)], the Principal Bench ....