TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 596X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the appellant on the behest of the main contractor M/s. Khurana Construction but there is no dispute that the service was provided in relation to various operations of the SEZ and the services was undisputedly consumed in the SEZ therefore, the appellant has provided the service in SEZ. Accordingly, they are eligible for exemption Notification No. 04/2004-ST dated 31.03.2004. In view of the COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX-I VERSUS FEDCO PAINTS AND CONTRACTS [ 2017 (5) TMI 338 - CESTAT MUMBAI] , it is settled that the service of sub- contractor provided in SEZ shall be eligible for exemption under Notification No. 04/2004-ST and other identical notifications. The impugned order is not sustainable, hence, the same is set aside - Appeal i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - Chennai) M/s. Metlife Global Operations Support Center (P.) Ltd vs. Commissioner, Service Tax, New Delhi- 2021 (46) GSTK 418 (Tri.Del) Sudhir Chand Jain vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad 2018 (8) GSTL 302 (Tri.All) M/s. Hindustan Dorr-Oliver Ltd and Another vs. Union of India and others 1989 (9) TMI 355- Patna High Court. 3. Shri Prashant Tripathi, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order. He also placed reliance on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of National Building Construction Corporation Ltd vs. CCE ST, PATNA 2011 (23) STR 593 (Tri. Kolkata) 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and peru ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. It is also undisputed that appellant was a sub-contractor. On this factual matrix, we have to now consider the Notification No. 4/2004-S.T. which reads as under : Service tax exemption to services provided to a Developer or units of Special Economic Zone Notification No. 17/2002-S.T. superseded In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs (Department of Revenue), No. 17/2002-Service Tax, dated 21-11-2002, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) dated 21-11-2002, vide, G.S.R 777(E), dated 21-11-200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance of Special Economic Zone, and also includes any person authorised for such purpose by any such developer; (3) Special Economic Zone means a zone specified as Special Economic Zone by the Central Government in the notification issued under clause (iii) of Explanation 2 to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944). 6. It can be seen from the above reproduced notification that the said notification exempts any taxable service provided by any service provider for consumption of the service within a Special Economic Zone, subject to following/adhering to the conditions. It is also undisputed that all the conditions mentioned in the notifications are satisfied by the SEZ developer i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative and also by Hon ble Patna High Court in the case of Hindustan Dorr Oliver Ltd. v. State of Bihar. Further, I find that the approval should be either by the Deputy Commissioner and/or Board of Approvals as the case case may be. Here, admittedly the work order has been issued by Deputy Commissioner, SEZ. Hence it amounts to providing and consuming service to SEZ and/or allotted through NBCC, as the operating agency to the appellant with regard to other demand of Service Tax which already stands paid along with interest before SCN and not being contested by the appellant as regard taxability. Thus, there is ipso facto approval of the Deputy Commissioner of the SEZ. Thus, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
