Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

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

2024 (4) TMI 226

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....submits that the issue involve in these two appeals are as follows : - Brief Summary of the issue in Appeal Appeal No Amounts 1. Denial of claim for refund made in terms of the notification No.9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 on the allegation that, Services are not mentioned in the list of specified services approved by the SEZ authorities. ST/70531/2020 27,915/- ST/70529/2020 1,05,802/- 2. Denial of claim for refund against invoices which contains has been addressed to Appellant's Unit outside the SEZ but has been consumed within the SEZ ST/70529/2020 4,62,425/- 1.2 He further submits that the issue is decided by this Tribunal in their own case by Final Order Nos.70277-70280/2023 dated 21 December, 2023. The Tribunal has considered ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rvice India Pvt. Ltd. (Supra), the CESTAT Bangalore has passed the following order :- The other grounds on which the refund "6.1... claims have been rejected by the impugned order is that the appellant has not produced the approved list of specified input services from the UAC SE2 which is mandatory and as per the Commissioner (Appeals). In reply to this argument, the Learned Counsel submitted that in view of the settled legal position by various decisions relied upon by him, condition in respect of approval from UAC not a mandatory requirement as the SEZ Act vide Section 51 of SEZ Act will have overriding effect over the provisions of other law. Therefore keeping in view of the intention of the Government in enacting the SEZ Act and givi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fund of Service Tax, remitted by taxable service providers in relation to the taxable services provided to a unit in a SEZ. On this harmonious construction, the immunity to Service Tax provided under Section 7 or 26 of the 2005 Act cannot be so interpreted as to be eclipsed the procedural prescriptions of Notification No. 9/2009 or 15/2009. These Notifications are calibrated to enable recipients of taxable services (exempt from liability to tax under the provisions of the 2005 Act), to claim refund of the Service Tax, wherever assessed 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 ....