Messrs Dic Fine Chemicals Pvt Ltd Vs C.C.E (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
As regard the issue that whether the refund claim can be rejected on the ground that the input services on which the refund claim was made by SEZ is not approved by the approval committee. As per the facts of the present case the refund claim is pertaining to the period March to May, 2009 and the appellant had applied and the approval was given by the Approval Committee in September, 2009. Even though belatedly the facts remains that the input services were approved by the Approval committee. Without prejudice , I find that this issue is no longer res- integra as in various judgments this Tribunal has expressed clear view that the approval of input services by the approval committee is only a procedural requirement and due to this procedural lapse refund cannot be rejected.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER
The issue involved in the present case is that whether the appellants refund claim made under Notification No 15/2009- ST dated 20.05.2009 can be rejected on the ground that the input services are not approved as per the approval list by the approval committee of SEZ.
2. Shri Amal Dave, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that it is settled law that only for the lapse of non approval of input services in SEZ, refund cannot be rejected. Therefore he placed reliance on the following judgments :
