TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 157
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t is undisputed that the appellant had received approval from the Approval Committee with respect to services used in relation to authorized operations. As per the Notification No. 40/2012 dated 20.06.2012 and Notification No. 12/2013 dated 01.07.2013 the services provided to the appellant and Special Economic Zone unit are exempted and SEZ unit eligible to seek refund of tax paid on the services received by it; accordingly, the appellant being an SEZ unit, filed the following refund claims of service tax paid on specified services: S. No. Period of refund Amount of refund claimed Date of filing refund 1. July 2012 to September 1. 2012 34,21,812/- 26.02.2015 2. October 2012 to 2. December 2012 57,67,752/- 26.02.2015 3. January 2013 to March 3. 2013 43,50,952/- 26.02.2015 4. 4. April 2013 to June 2013 43,44,153/- 26.02.2015 5 July 2013 to September 5. 2013 48,29,767/- 27.11.2014 Total 2,27,14,436 Thereafter, respondent/Department issued Deficiency Memo dated 14.09.2015 with respect to the above refund claims wherein one of the discrepancies was that the refund claims are time-barred being hit ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervices provided to a developer or unit to carry on the authorised operations in a Special Economic Zone. Further, the Section 26(2) states that the Central Government may prescribe the manner, terms and condition subject to which such exemption shall be granted. He further submits that the terms and conditions subject to which the exemptions are to be granted under subsection (1) of section 26 should be prescribed by the Rules made by the Central Government under the SEZ Act, 2005 and as per Rule 22 in the SEZ Rules, 2006 issued in exercise of the power conferred by section 55 of the SEZ Act which prescribed such conditions. He further submits that there is no dispute about the fact : (1) that the Appellant has complied with the provisions contained in rule 22 of the SEZ Rules, 2006, and (2) that Rule 22 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 does not stipulate any limitation period to file the refund claim. 4.1 He further submits that in the Order-in-Original dated 29.12.2015, it has been noted that appellant had received approval from the Approval Committee with respect to services used in relation to authorized operations. He further submits that Section 93 of the Finance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vs. Commissioner of Service Tax-VII, Mumbai [2025 (3) TMI 1505-CESTAT Mumbai] * Shapoorji Pallonji & Company Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Nagpur-1 [2025 (6) TMI 1264. CESTAT Mumbai] * M/s Lanco Solar Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Central Tax, Central 1 Excise, Customs [Service Tax Appeal No. 52078 of 2018] * Wabco India Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & C. Ex., Chennai [2021 10 (54) G.S.T.L. 37 (Tri. Chennai)] * M/s ATC Tyres Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, 16 Tirunelveli [2021 (3) TM1 681-CESTAT Chennai] * Himatsingka Linens vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Mysuru 17 Commissionerate [2019 (1) TMI 1440-CESTAT Bangalore] * Metlife Global Operations Support Center (P.) Ltd. vs. Commr. Service 17 Tax, New Delhi [2021 (46) G.S.T.L. 418 (Tri. Del.)] 4.2 He further submits that the position of law that SEZ Act has overriding effect over the Finance Act and Notification issued thereunder is a settled proposition of law and this Tribunal in the case of M/s Sapient Consulting Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi Iv 2025 SCC Online CESTAT 4032 has affirmed this principle; wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ditions are mandatory in nature to file refund claim with one year from the end of the month in which actual payment of service tax was made by such developer or unit to the Registered service provider or such extended period as the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner as the case may be permit. He further submits that it is a fact on record that the disputed refund claims are delayed as per the time limit prescribed under the said Notifications. He further submits that the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the refund claim has been rejected by the AC/DC. He further submits that as per the sub-Rule 5 of Rule 47 of SEZ Rule 2006, it is clear that while claiming refund claim paid on specified serviced received by the SEZ Unit or the developer the same should be in accordance with the relevant provisions issued under Finance Act or the Notification issued thereunder. He further submits that the appellant have not furnished the documents which are required for processing the refund claim before the adjudicating authority and therefore it was not possible to verify the refund claim of the appellant. He further submits that the verification aspects are not in consi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight of the above admitted facts, the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the availability of exemptions under section 26 of the SEZ Act would depend not only upon the terms and conditions prescribed under section 26(2), but also upon the terms and conditions prescribed in the notifications issued under various enactments such as Customs Act, 1962, Customs Tariff Act, 1975, Central Excise Act, 1944, Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, Finance Act, 1994 and Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, etc., enlisted in clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (1) of section 26 of the Act. 30. This is for the reason that section 26(1) of the SEZ Act made the entitlement to certain exemptions subject to provisions of sub-section (2) of section 26. Section 26(1) did not make the entitlement of a developer to certain exemptions, subject to the provisions of something else other than the provisions of sub-section (2). Therefore, the fifth respondent cannot read section 26(1) to mean that the exemptions listed therein are (1) subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 26, and (2) also subject to the terms and conditions prescribed in the Customs Act, 1962, the Customs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed under section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994, are available to any one and not necessarily confined to a unit in a special economic zone. Section 93 of the Finance Act, in that sense is a general power of exemption available in respect of all taxable services. But, section 26(1) is a special power of exemption under a special enactment dealing with a unit in a special economic zone. Therefore, the notifications issued under section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be pressed into service for finding out whether a unit in a SEZ qualifies for exemption or not. 38. Thus, the SEZ Act clearly indicates the persons who are entitled to the benefit of exemptions. The Act also lists out the duties from which exemption is granted. The Act enlists the operations or activities in respect of which exemption is available. 39. After prescribing all the above three, in section 26(1) itself, the Act also empowers the Central Government to prescribe in the form of Rules, the manner in which and the terms and conditions subject to which the exemptions are to be granted. Therefore, all the parameters indicated in Girnar Traders [2011] 3 SCC 1 are satisfied in section 26 and the Rul....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ny other law because of section 51 of the SEZ Act. The question is what part of the tax law have been overridden by the SEZ Act. To answer this question, we proceed to examine the requirement under the Constitution of India to levy taxes and the relevant legal provisions of the Central Excise Act and Customs Act and Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 under which Service Tax is levied 27. This authority of law to levy and collect taxes is in the form of charging sections of the Acts- such as section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 and sections 66, 66A and section 66B of Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (for collection of Service Tax). While section 66 provides for levy of service tax on forward charge basis by the service provider, section 66A provides for charge of service on reverse charge basis by the service recipient in case of certain services. Section 66B provides for levy of service tax on all services other than those in the negative list after 2012. 28. The levy and collection of these taxes and duties are further modified by some machinery provisions of these Acts, including those which enable the Government to is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ributor are merely deposits and need to be refunded. They are like the amount deposited during investigations or before succeeding in appeals against demands or fine or penalty which are subsequently set aside. The question is, therefore, answered in favour of the appellant and the appellant is eligible to refund of service tax. 35. Since it has been found that the charging sections under the Finance Act. 1994 itself do not apply to SEZ units and therefore the exemption notification itself is redundant, the alternative submission of the appellant that it had fulfilled the conditions mentioned therein including filing it within time or that if there was delay, there was sufficient grounds for condoning it. 8.1 Further, the Tribunal in case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Ujjain vs. Cipla Limited [2024 (7) TMI 1358-CESTAT New Delhi has held as under: 2. The respondent is manufacturer and exporter of pharmaceutical products having manufacturing facilities at Indore SEZ During the relevant period, the respondent was availing various services in relation to its authorised operation, such as construction service, telecommunication service, architectu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....herefore redundant and have no application by virtue of the provisions of section 51 of the SEZ Act, overriding the charging sections in the other laws. vi.) The terms and conditions subject to which the exemptions are to be granted under section 26 (1) have to be prescribed by the rules made by the Central Government under the SEZ Rules issued in exercise of the power conferred by section 55 of the Act 9. The law is well settled that benefit of exemption granted under the notifications issued under the Finance Act are of general nature being available to any one and not necessarily confined to a unit in SEZ, which is peculiar in the case of section 26 of SEZ Act being a special power of exemption under a special enactment for a unit in a special economic zone. Therefore, notification issued under section 93 of the Finance Act 1994 cannot be pressed into service for finding out whether a unit in SEZ qualifies for exemption or not. 11. Thus services rendered by the appellant are fully exempted from service tax in terms of the provisions of the SEZ Act. the condition of exemption by way of refund imposed by virtue of the notifications issued under the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t to the concerned service providers. Also the revenue has chosen not to challenge anywhere that the services involved in the refund claims not covered by the provisions of Special Economic Zones Act, 2005. Thus, we do not find merit in the arguments and averments made by the appellate authority in impugned order to deny the benefits granted by the provisions of the Special Economic Zones Act and we find strong force in the submission of the appellant as regards eligibility for refunds in terms of the overriding provisions of Special Economic Zones Act. Further, in the case of M/s Lanco Solar Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, Central Tax, Central Excise, Customs Service Tax Appeal No. 52078 of 2018, the Tribunal has held as under: 3. The issue in these appeals is whether the appellant-assessee a developer in the SEZ, who are fully exempt from payment of service tax under Section 26 (1)(e) read with 51 of SEZ Act, 2005, and whether denial of refund of service tax on the ground of limitation is justified 10. Having considered the rival contentions and relying on the precedent decisions of this Tribunal, particularly in the case of Intas Pharma (supra), I hold that the ....