
[ad_1]

Appellate Tribunal for Customs, Excise and Service Tax (CESTAT), Ahmedabad bench observed that refund is allowed on trenching pipeline partly installed in SEZ, partly outside.
The appellant, Reliance Jamnagar Infrastructure Limited, received services like construction services, CHA services in their SEZ on payment of service tax. Subsequently, a refund request was submitted according to notification no. 09/2009-ST with amendments 15/2009-ST. The judicial authority rejected the claim for refund on the basis that, as far as the construction services were concerned, the service was fully consumed in the SEZ. Therefore, the same is not regulated by Notice No. 09/2009.
Regarding the construction service in connection with appeal no. ST/449/2012, the refund was refused on the basis that the works on digging trenches for the irrigation network were not entirely within the SEZ, and partially outside the SEZ, so the requested refund was refused according to notification no. 09. /2009-ST. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the claim for refund, hence this appeal is preferred.
The lawyer who appeared on behalf of the appellant stated that the works are for digging irrigation ditches, she claims that the service was received for the authorized work of the SEZ. The irrigation project line is placed inside the SEZ, however, a part of it is placed outside, but only for the purposes of the SEZ. So, even though the entire construction is not being carried out within the SEZ at all but was for the SEZ, the refund is admissible.
A Coram comprising Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “As regards the refund of five thousand rupees for construction services received from Jai Khodiyar in connection with the construction of trenches and pipelines, we find that the construction was exclusively for SEZ only. It is very obvious that some of them will be outside the premises of the SEZ, but this does not mean that the service is obtained for other than the authorized business of the SEZ.
“Consequently, based on the recognized fact that the trenching pipeline was placed partly in the SEZ and partly outside, but for use in the function of the SEZ, it is acceptable and the return of the same is clearly acceptable,” the tribunal decided.
Subscribe to Taxcan Premium to see the verdict
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxcan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
Reliance Jamnagar Infrastructure Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise and ST
Appellant’s Counsel: Ms. Dimple Gohil
Counsel for the Respondent: Shri Rajesh K Agarwal
CITATION: 2022 TAX (CESTAT) 678
[ad_2]
Source link