TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 289X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9, during the said period the exemption to service provided to SEZ was available under notification no. 9/2009-ST which was by way of refund however, subsequently notification no.15/2009-ST dated 20.05.2009 was issued amending the notification no.9/2009-ST wherin, sub-para (c) of para 1 of the notification no.9/2009-ST was substituted. The amendment is explicitly by way of substitution of sub-para (c) in the notification no.9/2009-ST. It is settled law that if any amendment is brought whereby, the earlier terms of the notification is substituted then, such amendment shall be effective from retrospective effect i.e. from the date of original notification accordingly, for the services provided during the period 03.03.2009 to 20.05.2009 sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt with M/s. Reliance Petroleum Limited, a unit situated in SEZ for providing services which were to be consumed within SEZ. They availed the exemption under notification no. 4/2004-ST, the said notification was amended by notification no.9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 and it was further amended by way of a substitution vide notification no.15/2009-ST. On scrutiny of ST-3 returns filed by the appellant, it was noticed that the appellant had shown certain receipts for exempted services under erection commissioning and installation service, further details were called for from the appellant vide letter dated 12.08.2010. On furnishing all the details, a show cause notice came to be issued for the period 03.03.2009 and 20.05.2009 wherein, it was pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20.05.2009 being issued by substituting the earlier provision, the same shall have retrospective effect therefore, the supply of service of the appellant is covered by exemption notification no.9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 as amended by notification no.15/2009-ST dated 20.05.2009. He also relied upon the circular no.114/08/2009-ST dated 20.05.2009. Alternatively, he submits that even if it is assumed that there is no exemption notification for the service provided by the appellant, the same shall not be taxable on the ground that SEZ Act provides that any supply of goods and service to SEZ shall not be charged to duty. Since the SEZ Act over rides all other acts by virtue of SEZ Act itself, the supply of services to SEZ unit/developer will n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) No. 9/2009-Service Tax, dated the 3rd March, 2009 which was published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section () vide number G.S.R. 146(E), dated the 3rd March, 2009, namely:- In the said notification, (A) in paragraph 1, in the proviso,- the sub-paragraph (c), the following shall be substituted, namely (c) the exemption claimed by the developer or units of Special Economic Zone shall be provided by way of refund of service tax paid on the specified services used in relation to the authorised operations in the Special Economic Zone except for services consumed wholly within the Special Economic Zone, (2) for sub-paragraph (d), ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Z. In the present case, the service of erection, commissioning and installation is indeed used and wholly consumed in the SEZ therefore, the appellant is eligible for exemption under notification no.9/2009-ST as amended by notification no.15/2009-ST dated 20.05.2009. 4.1 Without prejudice to the above, we also find that even as per SEZ Act, all the supplies of goods and services made to SEZ are not chargeable to duty or service tax. For this reason also, the demand is not sustainable. This view was also taken in the judgment cited by the appellant in the case of RELIANCE JAMNAGAR INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED (supra) wherein, the tribunal had made the following observations:- 4. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was received for other than authorised operations of SEZ. Accordingly, on the admitted fact that trenching pipeline installed partly in SEZ and partly outside but for use in operation of the SEZ is admissible and the refund of the same is clearly admissible. 7. As per our above observation and discussions the appellant are entitled for the refund. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set-aside and the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. 05. As per our above discussion and finding, the demand of service tax in respect of services provided to authorized operation of SEZ is not sustainable accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in the open court on 07.02.2023 ) - - TaxTMI - TMI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
