TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 1509
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... period 01.06.2010 to 31.12.2010, on 07.02.2012 under the provisions of Notification No. 17/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011 applicable to SEZ units for the services rendered during the relevant period. The refund claim got rejected by the original Adjudicating Authority stating that the applicants have not fulfilled the condition as stipulated under Notification No. 17/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011 and have failed to furnish complete and proper documentary evidence for claiming the refund claim. The appellant did not accept the impugned order-in-original which rejected the refunded of the Service Tax and filed an Appeal before Commissioner Appeals. The learned Commissioner Appeal vide its order dated 07.01.2014 has dismissed the Appeal of the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e been fulfilled by the appellant by submitting approved list in November, 2011 which was otherwise also in continuation to their earlier list of services which was submitted for the Notification of 03.03.2009. It is settled preposition of law that substantive benefit cannot be denied to an assesse only of procedural or minor infringement of requirement. In view of above I hold that the benefit of Notification No. 17/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011 should have been extended to the appellant with regard to the export of the services provided by them to the SEZ unit. 4. I also take note of the fact that the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the matter is no longer res integra as the matter in principle has already be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al activity/production or not and in para 5.1(xix), the Division Bench has observed and held as under: "(xix) In the facts of the present case the assessee is engaged in the manufacture of medicaments. By their very nature. The drugs manufactured by the assessee prior to final production thereof are required to be subjected to technical testing and analysis before entering into commercial production. For such purpose, the products are manufactured in small trial batches and thereafter, sent for testing and analysis purpose. Undisputed, when the goods are removed for testing and analysis, excise duty has been paid thereon. Since production of medicaments are subject to approval by the regulatory authorities of various countries to w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....titled to avail of Cenvat credit in relation to service tax paid in relation to technical testing and analysis services availed by it." Considering the aforesaid facts and decision of this Court in the case of Cadila Healthcare Ltd. (supra), no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in holding that the respondent shall be entitled to refund as claimed. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arise in the present appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. However, it is clarified that in the present appeal we have not considered any other issue except the referred to hereinabove. With these present appeal is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the main Tax Appeal, no orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 of Notification No. 15/2009 cannot be inferred to have imposed any disability on the recipient of services consumed wholly within the SEZ, from seeking refund of Service Tax remitted on such transactions, by the providers of such services. 12. Therefore, the rejection of the appellan....