Stay abreast with the latest developments in the professional domain along with in-depth analysis through the monthly BCA Journal. Get access to an engaging library of researched publications from the BCAS stable.
Learn MoreExplore past issues of BCA Journal & indulge in a treasure trove of high-quality professional content across format of print, videos & learning events from the BCAS stable.
Learn More
Facts:
The Appellant in SEZ received GTA services during the period April to September, 2009 and filed a refund claim. The adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority rejected the refund claim only on the ground that the Appellant did not produce documentary evidences in respect of taxable services provided to SEZ and consumed partially or wholly outside the SEZ.
Held:
Tribunal observed that the refund application is supported with the bills of transport companies, which indicate the consignors or beneficiary of the services as the Appellant in a particular Clause which is in SEZ. From the records, the Tribunal also observed that the said transport company is for transportation of the goods into the SEZ unit and also taking up the goods from the SEZ unit. These documents were held as sufficient evidence before the lower authorities to justify his refund claim and accordingly the claim was allowed.
