2025 (6) TMI 682

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rent categories including Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit in Chennai. As per Notification No.9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009. Appellant had filed six refund applications on 14.05.2010 for the refund of service tax paid on the inputs used in SEZ operations for the period from December 2009 to February 2010. However, the adjudicating authority as per the Order-in-Original dated 24.12.2010 rejected the refund claim of Rs.60,57,163.53 and allowed refund of Rs.18,607.32. Aggrieved by the said order, an appeal was filed before the learned Commissioner (A) and the learned Commissioner (A) as per the impugned order rejected the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, present appeal is filed. 2. When the appeal came up for hearing, the learned counsel s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cation, it was totally unwarranted on the part of the adjudicating authority and the appellate authority to go into this question and come to their own findings in the matter. Therefore, rejection by the lower authorities of the refund claims of the service ta paid on various services on this ground is bad in law and is accordingly set aside. 6.2 Coming to the next question, whether in respect of the service which were wholly consumed and which were fully exempt from payment of duty, whether the appellants can be granted refund under Notification No.9/2009-ST dated 3.3.2009 as amended by Notification No.15/2009-ST dated 20.05.2009 through which amendment a condition was inserted stating that the refund procedure prescribed under th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the authorised operations of the appellant within the SEZ. From the records, it is seen that the appellant has filed the refund claim within the time period provided in Section 11B and the appellant has borne the incidence of taxation." 3. Following the ratio of the above decision, the adjudicating authority considered the claim made by the appellant and allowed five (5) refund claim out of six (6) claims made by the appellant. 4. Learned counsel also drew our attention to the following decisions of the Tribunal in this regard. I. CCE & ST, Vadodara vs. Sterling SEZ & infrastructure Ltd.: 2019 (3) TMI 971 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD. II. Reliance Industries Ltd. vs. CCE, Mumbai: 2016 (41) STR 465 (Tri.-Mum.) III. De....