Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 897 - AT - Service TaxLevy of service tax - GTA Services - services consumed within the SEZ area - applicability of N/N. 4/2004 - Reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the Show Cause Notice, it is seen that the demand is raised as if the appellant has rendered the GTA Services. In fact the appellant has availed GTA Services for clearances of goods from the SEZ zone to the DTA area. The appellant would be liable to pay the Service Tax only under Reverse Charge basis. There is a factual error in the Show Cause Notice in raising the demand itself. The appellant being a SEZ unit is not liable to pay any taxes and duties as per the provision under Section 26 of the SEZ Act. Further, Section 51 of the said Act has an overriding effect - The decision in the case of M/S. SRF LTD. VERSUS C.C.E., INDORE [2018 (6) TMI 387 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] has considered the very same point, where it was held that It was held that consumption of services within Special Economic Zone is intended to bear the utilization by the entities within the special economic zone. By no stretch it can be stated that it intends to restrict such exemption only to the extent that its consumption to be within the geographical boundaries of Special Economic Zone. The Tribunal in the case of M/S. VISION PRO EVENT MANAGEMENT VERSUS CCE & ST, CHENNAI [2018 (7) TMI 334 - CESTAT CHENNAI] had also considered the issue whether exemption from Service Tax is eligible when the services are availed outside to the SEZ zone, where it was held that The event was held outside the SEZ unit. Even if the event is held outside, since the services were for advertisement of product of SEZ, the services provided is to be considered as consumed within SEZ. It also needs to be mentioned that for availing the services, the SEZ has to get these services approved by the Development Commissioner. The department then cannot contend that these services are not eligible for refund since these are not consumed within SEZ. From the above discussions, we are of the considered opinion that the denial of benefit is unjustified. The impugned order is set aside - Appeal allowed.
|