The provisions of the SEZ Act take precedence over service tax laws regarding refund claims, allowing for extended timelines to operationalize exemptions.

Per: Shri P. Dinesha

All these Appeals involve a common issue and therefore they are taken up together for common disposal. Facts involved in all these Appeals are also identical and therefore, as a lead case, the facts as discussed in the case of M/s.Renault Nissan Technology Business Center (I) P. Ltd. (Appeal No.ST/40118/2014) is considered.

2. Before delving into considering the factual background, we find that the Adjudicating Authority viz. Deputy Commissioner did not issue any SCN in response to the Appellant’s refund claim filed on 22.01.2010; a letter dated 17.08.2010 was issued seeking clarifications regarding the refund claim made in response to which, the Appellant filed details vide its letter duly acknowledged by the office of the Deputy Commissioner on 17.09.2010 – both these letters form part of the Appeal record filed before us. A perusal of the above reply inter alia mentions about the Appellant’s request for granting a personal hearing but that has been very conveniently misunderstood by the Commissioner (Appeals) at para 7 of his order, wherein he has tried to defend the non-issuance of the statutory notice. It is well settled that a SCN is the foundation wherein the issuing authority would make known the Noticee the relevant provisions in the statute relating to Noticee’s claims including the allowances/disallowances flowing from the applicable statute and hence, failure to issue such a statutory notice cannot, in our view, be attributed in any way to such Noticee. Hence, we seriously disapprove this finding of the officer holding the rank of a Commissioner (Appeals). This would have serious impact on the findings in the orders of both the Lower Authorities when it comes to the issue of extended period of limitation.

3. Brief and relevant facts emerging from the Appeal- records are that the Appellant had filed refund claims under Notification No.9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 claiming refund of service tax paid on services utilized by them during March 2009 to October 2009 and the Adjudicating Authority vide Order-in-Original No.118/2010-ST dated 29.12.2010 rejected a part of the claim. The relevant portion of the OIO reads as under:

“From the foregoing, it is seen that the claimant has fulfilled all the conditions stipulated in the Notification No.9/09-ST as amended only to the extent discussed in detail above and I find that they are eligible for an amount of Rs.8,12,780/- (4012696-210280-82741-125837- 6051-74381-2700626) respect of the refund claimed.”

4. Aggrieved by the partial denial of its refund, the Appellant appears to have filed its first Appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai and the First Appellate Authority also vide impugned Order-in-Appeal No.120/2013 dated 22.10.2013 having rejected their Appeal, the present Appeal No.ST/40118/2014 is filed before this forum. Similarly, aggrieved by the different orders of the First Appellate Authority, the other 20 Appeals as above have been filed by Appellant.

5. We have heard Shri K. Sivarajan, Ld. Chartered Accountant for the Appellant and Ms. G. Krupa, Ld. Superintendent for the Respondent; we have carefully considered written as well as verbal arguments advanced by both the parties, perused the documents placed on record and the case law relied upon during the course of arguments before us. After hearing both the sides, the only question that arises for our consideration is, “whether denial of partial refund claim by the Adjudicating Authority as upheld in the impugned order, is in order?”

6. Ld. Chartered Accountant would contend that Appellant is a SEZ unit havi