TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 455
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....efore refunds were liable to be rejected. Status in brief of appeal is as follows:- SR No Appeal No. Claim Period Revenue's Allegations 1. ST/11836/2015 July 12 to March, 13 Rejected the refund claim on the ground that Service category of "outdoor catering service" was not found in the list of approved services for authorized operations. 2. ST/11835/2015 January, 13 Rejected the refund claim on two ground: 1. The service category of "outdoor catering services" was not found in the list of approved services for authorized operation 2. The Appellant failed to produce original bills. 3. ST/11869/2015 Feb. 13 & March, 13 Rejected the refund claim on two ground: 1. The service category of "outdoor catering services" was not found in the list of approved services for authorized operation 2. The Appellant failed to produce original bills. 4. ST/11857/2015 April, 13 to June, 13 Rejected the refund based on the premise that the Appellant has failed to produce original bills. 5. ST/11585/2015 April, 13 to June, 13 Rejected the refund based on the premise that the Appellant has failed to produce original bills. 6. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....DKNV Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax - (2023) 2 Centax 41 (Tri. Ahmd) Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. - 2017 (349) ELT 665 (Tri. Mumbai) SRF Ltd. Vs. CCE & ST, 2022 (64) GSTL 489 CESTAT 3. As per decision of this Tribunal in the matter of CST & Service Tax, Ahmedabad Vs. Adani Power Ltd. Vide Final Order No. A/10249/2022 dated 15.03.2022, it was held the approval of the Approval Committee when granted, takes effect retrospectively from the date of application. Again they also relied upon , inter alia, on the decision of SRF LTD VS. COMMR. OF CUS., C. EX. & S.T., LTU, NEW DELHI as reported in 2022 (64) GSTL 489 (Tri.-Del.) it was held that any additional condition prescribed under Service Tax notification if in conflict with the provisions and not in accordance with the conditions prescribed under Section 26 of the SEZ Act, 2005 read with SEZ Rules, then by virtue of Section 51 of the SEZ Act, 2005, the SEZ Act will prevail upon the condition of exemption over any other law including notification issued under Finance Act, 1994. It was thus, their submission that refund has been wrongly rejected and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... co Gujarat Ltd. reported as 2010 (255)ELT 518 (Guj.), whereas respondent submitted zerox copy of invoices which were duly attested by jurisdiction Superintendent in the event of loss of original of copy invoices. No dispute about duty paid character of inputs, their receipt in assessee's factory and their use in manufacture of final product, can be made when party got the same attested from range officer. 5.4 That Xerox copy of invoice cannot be considered as valid proof, hence in absence of valid documents/proof required for, refund claims should be rejected. 6. Further, vide their letter dated 02.01.2024, appellants also made following submissions: 6.1 The Appellant submits that the issue involved in the present case is no more res-Integra in view of the various decisions wherein it was held that belated approval of services by the approval committee would not prejudice the right of the assessee to claim refund of service tax for the services used in relation to authorized operation. In the Appellant's own case in the matter of C.S.T., Ahmedabad Vs. Adani Power Ltd., Order No. A / 10249 / 2022 dated 15.03.2022 passed in Appeal No.ST/11338/2013, this Hon'ble ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ithout prejudice to the aforesaid, it is submitted that Sodexo Foods Solutions India Pvt. Ltd provided the service of providing breakfast, lunch dinner and snack to the employees and various other personals who visits the AMDC for providing various power plant project related expert services/opinions. Further, IEEMA charged Annual corporate membership & Annual division membership subscription charges for the period April'12 to March 13. They provided various knowledge in the form of various literature & any other form in which the knowledge of Appellant's employees regarding electronic & electronics is enhanced & used for various requirements of the power business. Further, M/S. Garha Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd. provided the service of accommodation to one of the employee of the Appellant's during his official visits. Sincethe above services are used for the authorized operation of SEZ, the refund claim cannot be denied. 11. The Appellant submits that merely because the services are not mentioned in the Approved List of authorized services, it cannot be considered that these are not used for authorized operations. It is submitted that SEZ Act, 2005 overrides the Finance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant certifying the fact that the burden of tax has not been passed to any other person and borne by the Appellant. In such a background, the refund claim ought not to have been rejected on the ground of non-submission of original invoices. Reliance is placed upon the following case-laws wherein it was held that benefit of CENVAT credit ought not to be denied when the assessee produced photocopies of Invoices when it can be proved that the claimant is eligible for the benefit by other documents and the duty has been paid by him: Poornam Info Vision Vs. Commissioner of C.T. & C.EX.,COCHIN - 2019 (365) ELT 592 (Tri. Bang.) [Relevant Paras-6] DKNV Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax - (2023) 2 Centax 41 (Tri. Ahmd) [Relevant Paras- 4&5] Pepsico India Holding P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex. - 2017 (349) ELT 665 (Tri. Mumbai) [Relevant Paras-5] 15. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that Section 26 read with Section 51 of the SEZ Act overrides the charging section provided under the Finance Act, 1994 and therefore, it is not necessary to fulfil any conditions of any of the conditions prescribed under the exempt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... notifications and conditions therein are therefore, redundant because, the Parliament itself has, through Section 51 of the SEZ Act, overridden the charge in the other laws. 16. Reliance is also placed upon the decision passed in the case of GMR Aerospace Engineering Ltd. Vs. Union of India reported at 2019 (31) GSTL 596 (A.P.) duly affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide Judgment dated 26.07.2019 passed in SLP (C) Diary No. 22140/2019 wherein it is held that: 30. This is for the reason that Section 26(1) of the SEZ Act made the entitlement to certain exemptions subject to provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 26. Section 26(1) did not make the entitlement of a Developer to certain exemptions, subject to the provisions of something else other than the provisions of sub-section (2). Therefore, the 5th respondent cannot read Section 26(1) to mean that the exemptions listed therein are (1) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 26, and (2) also subject to the terms and conditions prescribed in the Customs Act, 1962, the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the Central Excise Act, 1944, the Central Tariff Act, 1985 and the Finance Act, 1994. This is especially ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed either in respect of matters covered by Section 7 or in respect of matters covered by Section 26(1) there is no scope for invoking any other law for imposing any other condition. 34. The benefit of exemptions granted under the notifications issued under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994, are available to any one and not necessarily confined to a unit in a special economic zone. Section 93 of the Finance Act, in that sense is a general power of exemption available in respect of all taxable services. But, Section 26(1) is a special power of exemption under a special enactment dealing with a unit in a special economic zone. Therefore, the notifications issued under Section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be pressed into service for finding out whether a unit in a SEZ qualifies for exemption or not. 17. Section 26 of the SEZ Act, 2005 (herein after referred as the "SEZ Act") deals with exemption, concession, tax benefits, draw backs etc. Sub-Section (e) of Section 1 of the SEZ Act provides exemption from Service Tax in relation to the services provided to a Developer for the authorized operation. 18. The expression "authorized operation" is defined under Section ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion) Act, 1992 and the rules made there under. Rule 31- The exemption from payment of service tax on taxable services under section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) rendered to a Developer or a Unit (including a Unit under construction) by any service provider shall be available for the authorized operations in a Special Economic Zone." 22. In view of the above, the Appellant is clearly entitled for the refund of the service tax paid on services availed and consumed in SEZ for the Authorised operations. 23. The Appellant submits that they are entitled for interest under Section 11 BB of the Central Excise Act which provides that if the refund claim has not been granted within three months from the date of application as required under the provisions of the Act, interest should be granted after expiry of three months till actual date of payment. In the present case, none of the lower authorities granted interest on sanctioned refund. The above position has been settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v Union of India 2011 (273) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) where it was held that interest on delayed refund is payable under Section 11 BB of the....