Roop Telesonic Ultrasonix Limited Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Service Tax refund to SEZ unit cannot be denied for registering under service Tax after filing refund claim
Roop Telesonic Ultrasonix Limited filed an appeal against the rejection of their service tax refund claim under Notification No. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 by the Commissioner of Customs. The rejection was based on the grounds that the appellant had not obtained Service Tax registration before filing the refund claim, as required by the notification.
Shri R R Dave, the appellant’s representative, argued that the appellant had indeed obtained the registration on 14.07.2015, after realizing the omission. He contended that since the registration had been obtained, the condition of the notification had been fulfilled, and therefore, the refund should not have been rejected. He further emphasized that any lapse in obtaining registration was merely procedural and should not result in the denial of the refund, especially when the payment of service tax and its usage in the Special Economic Zone (SEZ) were not in dispute.
In support of his argument, Shri Dave cited various judgments including Manubhai & Co. vs. CST, Ahmedabad, Zydus Hospira Oncology Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad, Devarsons Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II, Vijay Cotton & Fibre Co. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai, Commissioner of Central Excise vs. AIA Engineering Pvt. Ltd., and Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad vs. Adani Enterprise Ltd., which held that procedural lapses alone cannot justify the rejection of a refund claim.
