TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 57X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to produce the documents before the Adjudicating Authority but they will be able to do so now. In view of the above, the demand in so far as these two amounts is concerned, needs to be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to examine the documentation that may be provided by the appellant and re-determine the CENVAT credit to be denied, if any. Services provided to SEZ developer - benefit of N/N. 09/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 - Demand on the ground that Notification provided for exemption by way of refund to the SEZ unit/developer and not to the supplier themselves.- HELD THAT:- Supply of services by the assessee to the SEZ developer M/s. APIIC has to be treated as export of services in view of Section 2(m) read with Section 51 of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese services under the head of Erection, Commissioning or Installation services. It also demanded service tax on the services provided by the appellant to an SEZ where the customer was the SEZ developer namely M/s APIIC. Thirdly, there was a demand of service tax amounting to ₹ 30,930/- of renting of immovable property services on the rent received by them from a shop situated in Secunderbad. Further, the show cause notice denied CENVAT credit which, according to the revenue, was taken in violation of Rule 9 of the CCR, 2004. After following due process, the Original Authority vide his Order-in-Original No. 31/2012-(ST)-Commr. dated 11.12.2012 confirmed the demands and imposed penalties. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant preferre ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... transmission and distribution of electricity provided by a person to another person from payment of service tax. In the denovo Order-in-Original dated 28.09.2015 the Learned Commissioner held that these notifications do not apply because there is no evidence to show that the services rendered by the appellant assessee during the period are relatable to transmission of electricity. Accordingly, he confirmed the demand on this count. In the Order-in-Original dated 23.12.2015 for the subsequent period on the same issues the Learned Adjudicating Authority dropped the demand. The main issue to be decided before us is whether or not the appellant/assessee are covered by the benefit of these notifications. We find that the services were rendered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the documents before the Adjudicating Authority but they will be able to do so now. In view of the above, we find that the demand in so far as these two amounts is concerned, needs to be remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority to examine the documentation that may be provided by the appellant and re-determine the CENVAT credit to be denied, if any. c) Confirmation of a demand of ₹ 4,94,341/- and applicable interest on the services provided by the assessee from 03.03.2009 to 19.05.2009 to SEZ developer M/s Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructural Corporation on the ground that Notification No. 09/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 provided for exemption by way of refund to the SEZ unit/developer and not to the supplier the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T/30359/2016 is rejected and the impugned order is upheld. Assessess s appeal ST/30004/2016 is allowed partly as below. i) The demand of service tax on erection, commissioning and installation services is set aside. ii) The demand of service tax on services provided to SEZ developer APIIC for period 03.03.2009 to 19.05.2009 is set aside. iii) The demand of service tax on renting of immovable property services is upheld along with interest. iv) The demand of ineligible CENVAT credit amounting to ₹ 9,25,218/- and ₹ 13,437/- on ineligible/improper documentation is remanded back to the Original Adjudicating Authority to enable the assessee to produce the evidence before ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
