2026 (7) TMI 370

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....x filed by the appellant on the ground of violation of clause 3(e) of Notification No. 17/2011 - ST dated 01.03.2011 which prescribes the period of limitation for filing the refund claim as one year from the end of the month in which payment of service tax was made. 2. The appellant is operating as a co-developer in the Mangalore Special Economic Zone [MSEZ] In order to carry out its operations in the MSEZ, the appellant procured various input services from service providers located in the Domestic Tariff Area on payment of service tax. Since the appellant was operating as a co-developer, they filed refund claims of the service tax paid against the input services under Notification No. 17/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011, amended by Notification....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....23] (vi) SRF Limited Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, LTY New Delhi and Commissioner of CGST, and Central Excise, Indore [2022 (64) G.S.T.L. 489 (Tri.-Del.)] (vii) Vedanta Aluminium Limited Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax Bhubaneswar Commissionerate [Final Order No. 75552/2024 dated 06.03.2024] (viii) Cognizant Technology Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Chennai [Final Order No. 42377-52393/2021 dated 13.10.2021] (ix) Commissioner of Service Tax Delhi-II, New Delhi Vs. Cushman and Wakefield Property Management Service India Pvt. Ltd. [Final Order No. 50641/2023 dated 04.05.2023] (x) DLF Assets Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ly amended which are issued under section 93 of the Finance Act, 1944 and the requirement of filing the refund claim in terms of clause 3(e) to the said notification, i.e., within one year is irrelevant, and the appellant is entitled to the refund of the tax paid on input services. 6. Per contra, the learned AR has reiterated the findings of the authorities below. 7. In principle, we agree with the submissions made by learned counsel that the issue stands decided in their favour. In the case of GMR Aerospace Engineering Limited and Anr. versus Union of India and Ors., the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court analysing the scheme of SEZ Act and Rules along with the provisions of the Finance Act and the notifications issued thereunder held....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rging sections, having been overridden by the SEZ Act, no legal authority to levy and collect central excise duty, customs duty or service tax for goods or services supplied for authorized operations of SEZ developers and units covered by section 26 remains. Without such a legal authority, no tax or duty can be either levied or collected in view of article 265 of the Constitution of India. 32. Therefore, there is no need for any exemption notifications under any of these three Acts, nor is it necessary to fulfil any of the conditions laid down in the exemption notifications, if any, issued for the purpose. Thus, the charge of excise duty under section 3 of the Central Excise Act, the charge of customs duty under section 12 of the C....