TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 617
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tember, 2011 in terms of Notification No. 17/2011 dated 01.03.2011. The Original Refund Sanctioning Authority examined the claim in view of the provisions under Notification No. 17/2011- ST dated 01.03.2011 and thereafter, due to some non-compliance, as stipulated in terms of said notification, the refund was rejected. 3. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) examined the provisions under the said notification and, inter alia, held that on the date of filing of the refund claim, there was no list of approved services for the period 29.07.2011. Hence, the refund claim pertaining to services received during the period prior to 29.07.2011 failed to fulfil the substantial conditions of Notification No. 17/2011. With regard to amount of Rs. 1,37,38,293/-, claimed by appellant as refund being Service Tax paid for the services received towards transaction fee, it was not considered as taxable service under Section 65(105), and also not being in the approved list, the same was held liable for rejection. Moreover, he also noted that the appellant has not submitted the copy of contract along with appeal papers, in support of this laws whereas, invoice amount of Rs.1,37,38,293/- was towards pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(4) TMI 429 - (Tri-Ahm) 6. Divis Laboratories v. CCE, Vizag - 2021 (54) GSTL 400 - (Tri-Hyd) 8. Learned Advocate has further relied on following judgments in support of his contention that substantive benefit cannot be denied on the ground of technical discrepancy in the invoice. 1. Hyderabad Infratech Pvt. Ltd., - CCE, Hyd. - 2023 (10) TMI 497 - (Tri-Hyd) 2. Vendanta Ltd., V. CCE - 2021 (44) GSTL 99 - (Tri-Kol) 9. Learned AR, on the other hand reiterated the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted that the appellants have claimed the exemption in terms of Notification No. 17/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011 and they have not complied with all the requirements of the said notification, which is essential requirement for exempting payment of Service Tax on authorised operations and the said exemption is allowed by way of refund. Therefore, this being essentially an exemption notification, it has to construed strictly and this cannot be treated as mere procedural breach. 10. Heard both the sides perused the records. 11. We find that the short question for determination is whether the appellants are entitled for refund of the amount paid by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts, exempt those that are exempt by Notification No. 4 of 2004. She also drew our attention to the amendment introduced to the SEZ Rules by way of notification in GSR 772(E), dated August 5, 2016. Under this notification, sub-rule (5) was inserted under rule 47 of the SEZ Rules, 2006. This sub-rule (5) inserted in rule 47 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 reads as follows: "(5) Refund, demand, adjudication, review and appeal with regard to matters relating to unauthorized operations under Special Economic Zones Act, 2005, transactions, and goods and services related there to, shall be made by the jurisdictional Customs Act, 1962, the Central Excise Act, 1944, and the Finance Act, 1994 and the rules made thereunder or the notifications issued thereunder." 41. On the strength of the aforesaid circular and the amendment to the Rules, it was contended by the learned senior standing counsel that the machinery provisions for working out refund, drawback, etc., are not available either in SEZ Act or the Rules framed thereunder and that therefore, the operation of the Act is subject to the provisions of the other enactments. 42. But, we do not agree. Though the "section tit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ication issued under Finance Act etc and keeping in view this, they set aside not only the O-I-O conforming the demand based on non-compliance of exemption conditions but also set aside the notifications in question itself insofar they related to Special Economic Zones. This order has been upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI Vs GMR Aerospace [2023 (6) CENTAX 155 (SC)]. Therefore, following the said decision, system of refund on account of various terms and conditions of the said notification, per se, is not tenable. However, the fact remains that they had initially applied for refund without relying on any specific provisions of the Acts or notification but before the department, they again filed refund claim in the prescribed proforma as advised and thereafter, the Refund Sanctioning Authority proceeded to examine the same in terms of Notification No. 17/2011. We also note that it has been clearly held that there is a provision under 47(5) of the SEZ Rules for regulating, inter alia, issues relating to refund by the Jurisdictional Customs and Central Excise Authority. In this case, they have not claimed any exemption from payment of S.T, as such in the first place b....