2026 (9) TMI 293

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the rejection of refund of Rs. 72,99,743/- pertaining to the period from 01.04.2010 to 28.02.2011. 2. The respondent is a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit engaged in manufacture of refined sugar. During the relevant period, it received taxable services for its authorised operations and paid service tax thereon. A refund claim was filed on 02.08.2011. The Adjudicating Authority sanctioned refund of Rs. 11,73,943/- pertaining to March, 2011 but rejected refund of Rs. 72,99,743/- relating to the earlier period on the ground that the claim was beyond the period prescribed under Notification No. 9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009. 3. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the claim was not liable to be rej....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the SEZ Act, 2005 and that by virtue of Section 51 of the SEZ Act, the provisions of the SEZ Act has overriding effect over inconsistent provisions contained on other enactments. Reliance is principally placed upon in the case of GMR Aerospace Engineering Vs Union of India [2019 (31) GSTL 596 (AP)], as also subsequent decisions following the said judgement. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the records. 8. The limited issue before us is whether refund of service tax paid on services admittedly used for authorised operations of a SEZ Unit can be denied solely on the ground of limitation prescribed under Notification No. 9/2009-ST. 9. It is not disputed that Respondent is a SEZ Unit and that the services in ques....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pecific ratio of the Jurisdictional High Court concerning the overriding effect of Section 26 and 51 of the SEZ Act. The present case is therefore distinguishable from a case where the very entitlement to refund arises only from an exemption notification. 12. Similarly, the decision in the case of M/s R.R. Stones Pvt Ltd., supra, relates to a situation where the benefit itself arose under a notification containing a specific limitation condition. In the present case, the substantive exemption flows from Section 26 of the SEZ Act, whereas the notification provides the machinery for extending the benefit by way of refund. The same reasoning also answers the reliance placed on Cummins Technologies India Pvt Ltd., supra. We further find that....