EYGBS (India) LLP Vs Commissioner of Central Tax (CESTAT Banglore)
CESTAT find that the impugned order has rejected the refund claims on the grounds that the appellant has violated the condition at para 3(III)(a), 3(III)(d) and Rule 5 of SEZ Notification No.12/2013-ST dt. 01/07/2013. Further, I find that the appellant has SEZ units as well as DTA units and had centralized Service Tax registration at Bangalore. The present refund application pertains to only SEZ units and is not connected with DTA units whereas the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order has wrongly come to the finding that the appellant has filed refund claim application for input services which have also been used in DTA units. Further I find that the impugned services involved in the present case for which refund has been denied, fall in the approved list of input services issued by the Development Commissioner and the appellant has produced on record the instruction issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, SEZ unit, where I find that these services have been specifically covered as input services. For each violation alleged by the Revenue, appellant have produced documentary proof in the form of invoices, bank statements and other records but the same has not been considered by the authorities below. Appellant has produced all those documentary proof along with the appeal paper book and some of the documents have also been produced along with written submissions at the time of hearing of these appeals. Since those documents and statements have not been considered in the impugned order by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeals) has come to the finding which is not based on verification of the documents. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that the matter needs to be remanded to the original authority with a direction to consider the statements, invoices and documents produced by the appellant in support of his claim and thereafter decide the refund application by passing a reasoned order. The original authority will also consider that in the appellant’s own case for earlier period for the same services, the refund was granted vide Order-in-Original dt. 29/07/2016. In view of my above discussion, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to the original authority to decide the refund claim application afresh after following the principles of natural justice. All the three appeals are disposed of by way of remand.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
The appellant have filed these three appeals against the common impugned order dt. 01.07.2019 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby the Commissioner(Appeals) has upheld the Order-in-Original and rejected all the three appeals. Since the issue in all the three appeals is identical and there is a common impugned order, all the three appeals are taken up together for discussion and disposal. The details of all the three appeals are given below:
