At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal Regional Bench, Hyderabad
By, THE HONORABLE JUSTICE: M.V. RAVINDRAN
For Petitioner: Y. Sreenivasa Reddy, Advocate And For Respondents: Dass Thavanam, A.R.
1. This appeal is directed against order-in-appeal No. 208/2013, dated 29-11-2013. Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. On perusal of records, it transpires that the issue is regarding rejection of refund claim of Rs. 2,52,036/- claimed by the appellant.
3. Appellant claimed the refund of the amount as being Se
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
rvice Tax paid by them under the Head "Business Support Services" in respect of services received in the SEZ Unit. They claimed the benefit of Notification No. 40/2012-S.T. , dated 20-6-2012. The said refund claim was rejected by the lower authorities on two grounds : (i) that the description of the services on the invoices of Xerox India Ltd. is not acceptable as the service provider is required to mention the actual service description in the invoices raised by them, (ii) since the services availed by the appellant from M/s. Xerox India Ltd. are in the authorized list, the appellant should avail the exemption of receiving the services without payment of Service Tax.
4. Learned Counsel submits that the benefit of Notification No. 40/2012 can be availed in either way i.e. the service provider may not tax the amount or the service recipient being SEZ can claim refund. As regards the description mentioned, he submits that the service provider has discharged the Service Tax liability under the category of "Support Services of Business or Commerce." Further, Learned AR reiterates the findings of the lower authorities and submits that the description mentioned in the invoices is not of any services rendered but seems to be supply of xerox machines and printers.
5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made and perusal of the documents on which CENVAT credit was availed by the appellant, I find that such documents/invoices raised by the service provider are for the "support services of business or commerce." It is seen from the invoices that the said services are for photostat copying of the documents as per the agreement entered with the appellant and is not for supply of machines or the printer. In view of this, the findings of the lower authorities that the description of the services is not acceptable seems to be incorrect as from the invoices it is clear that the services rendered is indicated by the service provider as "support services of business or commerce". On this point I find that the appellant succeeds that the description of the services rendered are very clearly indicated on the documents.
6. As regards other issue that the service provider need not have paid the Service Tax liability as being in the authorised list, I find that Notification No. 40/2012-S.T. , dated 20-6-2012 categorically comes in two parts and is for the service provider as well as the service recipient. If the service recipient is a SEZ unit, he should pay Service Tax to the service provider and claim the refund of the amount. In the case in hand the fact that the appellant is an SEZ unit is not disputed and the receipt of the services is also not disputed as also the payment of Service Tax to the service provider. In the absence of any adverse findings on these issues, I find that appellant herein is eligible for claiming the refund of the Service Tax paid by the service provider which is in consonance with the law. In view of the foregoing, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Order pronounced and dictated in open Court