TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 815
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the appellant (impugned order). 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants are Co-developers in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) approved in terms of letter dt.20.09.2010 issued by the Department of Commerce, Ministry of Commerce & Industry for development, construction and maintenance of MRO infrastructure in their sector specific SEZ premises situated at GMR Hyderabad Aviation SEZ Ltd. The appellants are procuring services from various service providers for use in relation to authorized operations in the SEZ, which comprise of both types of services i.e., which are wholly used within the SEZ and which are either wholly or partially used outside the SEZ. They have claimed exemption under Notification No.09/2009-ST dt.30....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spita India Ltd Vs CC [1999 (106) ELT 234] 5. He further submitted that a perusal of the nature of services covered in the refund claim would itself demonstrate that the same cannot be construed to be consumed wholly within the SEZ and the notifications does not call for production of any proof for consumption of services outside the SEZ and hence the denial of refund is not proper. It is undisputed that the services are used for authorized operations within the SEZ, which is the basic criterion for being eligible for exemption. Reliance has been placed on the following case laws: a) Wardha Power Company Ltd Vs CCE [2012 (35) STT 499] b) Tata Consultancy Service Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Mumbai [2012 (8) TMI 500 (Tri-Mumbai)] ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ority has decided that Business Support Services, Architect Service, Chartered Accountant service and Manpower Recruitment services are listed in the approved list but Consulting Engineering services, which were shown as Management or Business Consultant service are not part of the approved list, whereas, Consulting Engineering service has been accepted being included in the approved list. Meaning thereby, services provided by the appellant are in the list which was approved by Approval Committee. In such a situation, even if the appellant tried to describe it in a different manner, he should have interpreted its correct meaning. 'Management or Business Consultant service' has been defined under section 65(65) of the Finance Act, as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he said service, the appellant had shown it under the relevant category. In such situation, the lower authority should not have refused the refund on this ground. Learned Commissioner has refused to refund that this type of activity is consumed within the SEZ and therefore, comes under wholly consumed category and therefore, not entitled for refund. 13. Learned Counsel for appellant relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench at Mumbai in the case of Tata Consultancy Service Ltd Vs CCE & ST, Mumbai (supra), wherein, on the similar issue, the opinion expressed by the Bench in this regard is quite relevant to the present appeal, which is as under: "6.2 Coming to the next question, whether in respect of the services which were wholl....