AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1003
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmissioner decided the said refund claim vide Order-in- Original No. R/72/2014 dated 13.02.2015 wherein, he sanctioned the refund claim of Rs.5,83,61,378/- and rejected the refund claim of Rs.2,79,19,377/- which included an amount of Rs.2,26,713/- found inadmissible and agreed to by M/s. Swan Defence while replying to the queries raised by the Department Rs.2,68,49,704/- on account of time bar and Rs.7,63,758/- relating to furniture and fixtures. 2. Aggrieved with the said order, the appellant M/s. Swan Defence filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeal), Central Excise, Rajkot. The Department also filed appeal against sanctioning of refund in respect of certain invoices/ services before the above authority. The learned Commissioner (Appeal) considered both the appeals and decided them vide impugned order dated 29.02.2016 wherein, he allowed the Department's appeal in respect of invoices/ services mentioned at Sr. Nos. 5, 8, 13, 20, 21, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 37, 38, 43, 45, 47, 53, 56, 57, 59, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87. He however, rejected the Department's appeal in respect of Sr. Nos. 36, 39, 52 and 54 holding that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y also relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Satya Prakash Builders (P) Ltd-2013 (31) S.T.R. 13 (Tri-Del). His another say is that classification of service cannot be changed while sanctioning the refund claim. Alternatively, he submits that this may be treated as supply of tangible goods service which is also approved by Development Officer, KASEZ and hence, its refund is admissible to them. (c) Regarding rejection of refund of service tax paid on Management consultancy service (pertaining to 41 serial numbers of the list of invoices/ services mentioned in the OIO), appellant mentioned that refund was allowed by learned Assistant Commissioner but it was disallowed subsequently by learned Commissioner (Appeal) on the ground that during the relevant period, Management consultancy service was not approved as specified service as the same was approved on 19.01.2015. The appellant mentioned that they had taken up this issue with the competent authority of the SEZ and the unit approval committee in its meeting held on 30.07.2015 clarified that there is no change in working of SEZ before 09.10.2013 and the decision of the Ministry of Commerce was only for the prosp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed that Section 26(1) of the SEZ Act is inconsistent with three charging sections viz Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 66, 66 A and 66 B of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994. As per Section 51 of the SEZ Act, provisions of SEZ Act override any other provisions and other laws. He in fact, stated that there is no need for any exemption notification under any of the three Acts nor is it necessary to fulfil any condition of any of the notification laid down under the three Acts. Relying on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Rajkot vs. Reliance Industries 2019 (26) G.S.T.L. 34 (Tri-Ahmedabad), he requested to allow the refund claim. 5.1 Learned AR on the other hand justified rejection of refund claim on time bar, service not being approved by the Unit Approval Committee and renting of furniture and fixtures not covered under renting of immovable property service. He stated that if Notification No.12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 providing for filing of refund claim within one year from the end date of the month in which service tax has been paid, is interpreted the way appell....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Management consultancy service. The clarification was issued vide letter dated 11.08.2015 which mentioned that, "...... The committee, after due deliberations, decided that the list of 91 services as approved by the 4th UAC of E-complex Pvt. Ltd. SEZ held on 01.02.2012, for existing Developer and Unit (M/s. Swan Defence and Heavy Industries Limited) would deemed to have been continued and will continue further. Accordingly, all the above referred 91 services stand approved for service tax exemption w.e.f. 01.02.2012." The above letter leaves no doubt in our minds that Management consultancy service was approved in the case of the appellant and hence, refund of service tax paid on this service should have been allowed. (a.2) We find that as per order, an amount of Rs. 43,50,828/- (Sr. Nos.8,20,26,43,57,68,69,70,71,73,74,75-87 of the table in O-I-O) pertains to Management consultancy service. During hearing, learned Advocate mentioned that refund of Rs.4402/- involved in respect of Sr. No.8 and 14 pertains to Actuarial Valuation service provided by M/s. Seeneel Consultancy Services falling under business auxiliary service and refund of Rs.21,24,048/- involved on invoices mentioned ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he other hand has clearly elaborated the reasons for delay in filing refund claim including financial strain, delay in collection of separate certificates from Banks for remittance of service tax amount, practice of taking extra efforts and care to avoid human error, etc. It is a fact that the head office of the appellant is situated at Mumbai and they have to collect certificate from 29 different banks which are distantly located which seems to be the main reason of delay. Learned Advocate also takes us to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. APK Identification vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, reported at 2012 (27) S.T.R. 20 (Tri- Del), and emphasizes that SEZ Act is beneficial piece of legislation and exemption of service tax on the services availed by the SEZ units should be construed liberally. (c.2) We have considered the arguments of both sides and perused the records. The short point to be decided is whether the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner was correct in rejecting the request of the appellant for condonation of delay in filing the refund claim under Notification No. 12/2013- ST dated 01.07.2013. The case of the department is that the appellant had n....