TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 175
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ard to rejection of refund claims filed under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013, in respect of service tax paid on specified input services received and used for Authorised SEZ operations on the ground of availing the cenvat credit of the service tax paid on the input services which is not permitted as per the condition of Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013. The issues involved in other 4(four) appeals are with regard to rejection of refund claims of unutilized cenvat credit availed on input services used in the output services of export on the grounds that they are not eligible to avail credit of the input services used in the provision of exempt output services. 4. The brief facts are the appellant M/s. T.P. Vision India Private Ltd., is a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) Unit registered under the jurisdiction of the Central Tax Commissioner Bangalore-North. The Appellant holds Service Tax Registration for providing taxable output services viz., Information Technology Software Services (ITSS) and Business Auxiliary Services (now Business Support Services) to its overseas principal, M/s T. P Vision Netherlands. The Appellant holds a valid Letter of Approva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tently availed on SEZ input services and was reversed by the Appellant in the immediately subsequent return period upon realisation of the error. This reversal is on record. The reversal is equivalent in law to non-availment of credit. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the matter of CCE Vs. Bill Forge Ltd. 2012 (26) STR 204 (Kar.) and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chandrapur Magnet Wire Ltd. Vs. CCE -[1996 (81) ELT 3 (SC)] have categorically held that reversal of CENVAT Credit amounts to non-availment for the purpose of exemption /refund eligibility. Paragraph 5 of Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 provides an option not to avail the exemption and instead take CENVAT Credit. Since the credit was reversed before filing the claim, the condition is satisfied at the time the claim was filed. The ST-3 return is a periodical document; credit appearing in one return and reversed in the next does not represent a final, irrevocable election. There is no provision in the Notification deeming availment and subsequent reversal as a permanent bar. The decisions in Indian Rayon and Hari Chand Shri Gopal deal with deliberate, conscious dual-benefit claims. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Hon'ble Supreme Court in two separate decisions: first, by dismissing the Revenue's SLP in Union of India Vs. GMR Aerospace Engineering Ltd. [(2023) 6 Centax 155 (S.C.)], decided on 26.07.2019, and second, by independently affirming the same position in Commissioner of CGST, Navi Mumbai Vs. Eclerx Services Ltd. -[2023 (72) GSTL 4 (S.C.)]. The issue is therefore no longer res integra; Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai in Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [(2025) 28 Centax 324 (Tri.-Bom.)], Final Order dated 25.02.2025 on this point held, following the two Supreme Court decisions, that "exemption benefits extended to taxable services provided to SEZ under Section 26 of the SEZ Act, 2005 cannot be denied on the ground that certain procedures have not been followed or certain conditions prescribed in the notification have not been fulfilled." The ratio of the decision by this Tribunal's in appellant's own case M/s. T.P Vision India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCT, Bangalore vide Final Order No. 20404-20405/2019 dated 09.05.2019 in Appeal Nos. ST/21962 & 21963/2018-SM, which arose on identical facts involving the very same Appellant, the very same Notification 12/2013-ST, an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vice was still received for authorised operations and should be eligible under the general nexus test with the authorised operations. 12. The learned counsel submits that CBEC Circular No. 112/6/2009 ST dated 12.03.2009 clarifies that deficiencies in service provider documentation should not result in denial of benefits to the recipient if the service and its payment are otherwise established. Further, as held in GMR Aerospace (supra) and affirmed by the Supreme Court, procedural infirmities cannot defeat the exemption under Section 26 of the SEZ Act, 2005. 13. The learned counsel submits that; Rule 4A Invoice Non Compliance by Service Provider - No Bar on Recipient; Refund of service tax paid on Banking & Financial Services (Bank of America, National Association) was rejected in Order-in-Original 137/2016 dated 10.08.2016 (Rs. 14,000/-) and Order-in-Original 179/2016 dated 22.12.2016 (Rs. 30,996/-) because the invoices were not in the format prescribed under Rule 4A of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 (no service tax registration number, no breakup of service tax amount, address of receiver not mentioned). The rule requiring invoices in the prescribed format is a statutory obliga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... before filing the claim, the condition is satisfied at the time the claim was filed. The decisions in Indian Rayon and Hari Chand Shri Gopal deal with deliberate, conscious dual-benefit claims. The Appellant's reversal upon discovery of the error is a bona fide compliance and to deny Rs. 1.97 crore refund on account of a clerical error that was voluntarily corrected is unsustainable. Hence, we find the rejection of the 2(two) refund claims in these 2(two) Appeals are unsustainable. 18. The issues involved in other 4(four) Appeals are with regard to the rejection of refund claims filed under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 on the ground that the input services availed by the Appellant-SEZ unit are not enlisted in the Unit Approval Committee (UAC) list of the services approved by the Development Commissioner (DC) for the appellant unit. Therefore, input services availed which are outside the UAC list are not available has inputs services and the cenvat credit is not eligible and consequently the refund claim filed by the appellant pertaining to these input services are not eligible for refund under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013. It is the contentio....