TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. Accordingly, they filed refund claims on 09.05.2013 for the period July-September 2012, on 26.11.2013 for October-December 2012, and on 20.02.2014 for January-March 2013, seeking refunds of 23,98,207/-, 29,75,879/-, and 25,78,353/- respectively, towards service tax paid on services such as Rent-a-Cab, Works Contract, Management or Business Consultancy, Manpower Supply, Security Services, etc. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Tambaram I Division, through Orders-in-Original No. 03/2014 dated 31.01 2014, 37/2014 dated 06.06.2014, and 65/2014 dated 08.08.2014, had partially rejected the refund claims. Aggrieved by these orders, the Appellants filed appeals before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The Commissioner, vide common Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 41, 42 & 43/2016 (STA-1) dated 04.01.2016, from para 6 onwards, arrived at the following findings for rejection of refund in certain cases: - a. Management Consultancy service: - The Commissioner rejected the refund relating to service tax paid on "Management or Business Consultancy Service" on the ground that the Appellants had claimed the benefit under Sl. No. 5 of N....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....4 dated 06.06.2014, and 65/2014 dated 08.08.2014 and for the same reasons, and so these orders are liable to be set aside. 6. On merits, the Ld. Advocate submits that the rejection of refund relating to rent-a-cab and insurance services is erroneous. She states that the lower authority wrongly applied the provisions of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, even though the refund claim was filed under Notification No. 40/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. She argues that the Notification does not require an assessment of whether a service qualifies as an "input service" under Rule 2(1) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. 7. The Ld. Advocate further submits that the benefit under Notification No. 40/2012-ST is available to all services approved by the Development Commissioner and used in or in relation to the Authorized Operations of the SEZ unit. Since rent-a-cab and insurance services were duly approved and used for authorized SEZ operations, the Appellants are fully eligible for the refund of service tax paid thereon. In support of her submissions, the learned Advocate relies on the judgment of the Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court in GMR Aerospace Engineering Ltd. & Ors., 2019 (8) TMI 74....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ar, 2023 (12) TMI 119 (CESTAT Ahmedabad), wherein similar procedural deficiencies were held not to be fatal to refund claims. 12. The Ld. Authorized Representative Mr. N. Sathyanarayana has represented the Department. He has affirmed the findings of the Lower Adjudicating Authorities. He has argued that the appellant is not eligible for refunds as rejected in the impugned order and therefore, requested for upholding of the impugned order. 13. Heard both sides and considered the submissions made in the grounds of appeal and also during the course of hearing before the Tribunal. 14. I find that the primary issue in these appeals is whether the impugned Orders-in-Appeal are sustainable when they emanate from Orders-in-Original Nos. 03/2014 dated 31.01.2014, 37/2014 dated 06.06.2014, and 65/2014 dated 08.08.2014, all of which were passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals), in para 6 of the impugned order, has himself acknowledged that the adjudicating authority failed to grant personal hearing, thereby accepting a clear breach of natural justice. In such circumstances, the Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have set aside the order....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....168/ 2008-CX. 4, dated September 16, 2008, Smt. Sundari R. Pisupati, learned senior standing counsel contended that there is no exclusion of SEZ in Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 and that the service tax is applicable on taxable services provided by SEZ units, except 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 thereto, shall be made by the jurisdictional Customs and Central Excise Authorities in accordance with the relevant provisions contained in the 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 t....