Case Details: Accenture Solutions Pvt Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Tax, Navi Mumbai (2026) 39 Centax 41 (Tri.-Bom)
Judiciary and Counsel Details
- Shri Ajay Sharma, Member (J)
- Shri Kevin Gogri, Adv., for the appellant.
- Shri S B P Sinha, (AR) for the respondent.
Facts of the Case
The appellant, being a unit located in a Special Economic Zone (SEZ), had filed refund claims of service tax paid on specified services purportedly used within the SEZ under Notification No. 40/2012-ST, dated 20-06-2012. The department issued show cause notices (SCN) proposing rejection of such claims on grounds that the invoices were not issued in the name of the SEZ unit, that the services lacked approval from the Approval Committee, and that the appellant failed to establish that the services were performed within the SEZ. The adjudicating authority rejected the refund claims on the aforesaid grounds, following which the appellant preferred appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeals by setting aside the rejection relating to non-establishment of performance of services within the SEZ, but upheld the rejection on the remaining grounds concerning invoices and approval. Aggrieved by such partial rejection, the appellant carried the matter in further appeal before the tribunal, and the matter was accordingly placed before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT).
CESTAT Held
The CESTAT held that the issues involved were no longer res integra in view of the decision rendered in the appellant’s own case on identical facts and legal grounds. It was observed that in the earlier decision, the tribunal had undertaken a detailed examination of the provisions of the SEZ Act, 2005, the SEZ Rules, 2006, and Notification No. 40/2012-ST, dated 20-06-2012, and had allowed similar refund claims which were rejected on identical grounds. The tribunal noted that no material was brought on record by the department to demonstrate that the said precedent had been stayed or set aside by any higher judicial forum. In such circumstances, the tribunal held that judicial discipline required following the binding precedent in the appellant’s own case. Accordingly, the tribunal allowed the appeals and directed the grant of a refund to the appellant.
List of Cases Cited
- Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner — Final Order Nos. A/85331-85337/2025, dated 13-3-2025 — Followed [Paras 4, 5]
List of Notifications Cited
- Notification No. 40/2012-ST, dated 20-6-2012 [Paras 3, 4]
