TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 789
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Order Nos. 40059-40080/2026<br>Service Tax<br>And Service Tax Appeal No. 40560 of 2019 Hon'ble Mr. P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) And Hon'ble Mr. Vasa Seshagiri Rao, Member (Technical) For the Appellant : Shri K. Sivarajan, Chartered Accountant For the Respondent : Ms. G. Krupa, Authorized Representative ORDER PER: SHRI P. DINESHA : All these Appeals involve a common issue and therefore they are taken up together for common disposal. Facts involved in all these Appeals are also identical and therefore, as a lead case, the facts as discussed in the case of M/s.Renault Nissan Technology Business Center (I) P. Ltd. (Appeal No.ST/40118/2014) is considered. 2. Before delving into considering the factual background, we find t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 03.03.2009 claiming refund of service tax paid on services utilized by them during March 2009 to October 2009 and the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original No.118/2010-ST dated 29.12.2010 rejected a part of the claim. The relevant portion of the OIO reads as under: "From the foregoing, it is seen that the claimant has fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in the Notification No.9/09-ST as amended only to the extent discussed in detail above and I find that they are eligible for an amount of Rs.8,12,780/- (4012696-210280-82741-125837-6051-74381-2700626) respect of the refund claimed." 4. Aggrieved by the partial denial of its refund, the Appellant appears to have filed its first Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Notification No.9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 which was further amended by Notification No.15/2009-ST dated 20.05.2009. 6.1 It is submitted that vide Section 51 of the SEZ Act, the provisions of SEZ Act have been given an overriding effect on any other law which are inconsistent with the provisions legislated in the SEZ Act. The relevant extracts are reproduced for ready reference : "51. The provision of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any law other than this Act. 6.2 Such being the case, any procedural stipulations mentioned in the operative law cannot take away the benefit granted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or the purpose of implementing the exemption under the SEZ Act. Thus, when there is scope and additional time available under the operative law, to operationalize the exemption, any restrictive procedural applicable should be dispensed with, if it were to defeat the intent of the SEZ provisions. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that, if the period of limitation provide in Notification No.9/2009-ST is taken to be conclusive, then the exemption provisions will fail under SEZ Act. 7. Per contra, ld. Superintendent while supporting the findings of Lower Authorities, would question the jurisdiction of CESTAT since primarily the issue relates to the refund of service tax paid on input services used in relation to authorized operations of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tification. Clause 2 of the said Notification prescribes guidelines in the form of conditions the fulfilment of which enables the claimant to be entitled to the exemption. The Appellant has consistently claimed that it has paid service tax which is one of the condition-precedents, for claiming the exemption and in any case, both the Appellant and the Department do not disagree with conditions at sub-clauses (a) to (e) of Clause 2 supra. The dispute pertains to sub-clause (f) which prescribes that claim for refund shall be filed within six months from the date of actual payment of service tax. 10. It is the case of the Appellant that the time limit prescribed under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1942 which is a beneficial provisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding for a refund of service tax paid on input services has come into effect from 03.03.2009. .....In respect of other invoices, the claim for service tax refund has been rejected which are pertaining to tour operator and outdoor catering, commercial training and information technology services for the reason that these are not filed within 6 months from the date of payment of service tax as prescribed under 2(f) of the aforesaid Notification....... 13. Major and significant portion of the refund claims filed have been rejected as the same are not filed within 6 months from the date of payment of service tax as per the condition mentioned at 2(f) of the Notification ibid....." 13. The Bench has then relied on Vedanta Aluminium Limited....