TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 205X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er or SEZ units. In terms of said Notification No. 9/2009 ST, as service provider who provides services to SEZ units or developers of SEZ, has to pay Service tax on services so provided on which service receiver i.e. SEZ units or developer of SEZ may claim refund - Even though the sub-contractor provided the service as sub-contractor to the main contractor but it is not under dispute that the service was provided in the SEZ which prima-facie show that services were provided by the appellant as sub-contractor which was ultimately received by the SEZ developer or unit in SEZ. It is also the contention of the Revenue that the services provided by sub-contractor are not approved. In this regard it is found that it is not the service provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AL, Dahej. In terms of contract appellant has provided service to M/s IVRCL and they did not pay the service tax, as service were provided to SEZ units i.e. M/s OPAL and thus are exempt from service tax under Notification No. 09/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 as amended by Notification No. 15/2009 ST dated 20.05.2009 and subsequent exemption Notification No. 17/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011 and 40/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012. As per revenue the service tax exemption is available to services received by a Developer or units of SEZ with approval from the approval committee. In the instant case, the Appellant does not have approval from the competent authority to provide the services to Developer or SEZ units i.e. M/s OPAL. Further the Appellant has provide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n behalf of the Appellant submits that undisputedly appellant provided the disputed services in terms of contract by the main contractors at the site of SEZ units (M/s OPAL and M/s Torrent Power). That usually, for the services transaction take place between two parties, i.e. Service provider and Service receiver but in the present case there are three parties to the transaction. If sub-contractor are providing services to the main contractor for completion of main contract, then service tax obviously not leviable on the services provided by such sub-contractor. Unequivocally, appellant qua sub-contractor had provided services exclusively to SEZ units and also wholly consumed by the SEZ units, hence not liable to service tax. He placed reli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion that, the relevant Rule 31 of SEZ Rules, 2006 was in operation during the disputed period 2010-11 to 2013-14. 6. He further submits that the provisions of an Act which provide for an exemption from a tax have to be interpreted strictly. It is well settled legal principle that in a taxing statute, the provision has to be read in it‟s as is form. There is no room for any intendment or import external terms. In view of the plain language to include a condition that, the exemption would be available only if the services are rendered within SEZ. Ipso facto, services were rendered within SEZ and that too to the SEZ unit for authorized operation in the present case. Therefore, subsequent notification inserted purports to add a new co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed vs. CST 2013(32) STR 543 (Tri. Ahmd.) (iii) Reliance Ports and Terminals Limited vs. CCE- 2015(40)STR 200 (Tri. Ahmd.) (iv) Sudhir Chand Jain vs. CCE 2018(8)GSTL 302 (Tri. All) (v) CST Vs. Fedco Paints and Contracts 2017 (3) GSTL 364 (Tri.-Mumbai) (vi) SRF Limited vs. CCE ST -2022 (64)GSTL 489 (Tri. Del.) (vii) Wabco India Limited vs. CGST CE (Tri. Chennai) -2021 (54) GSTL 37 (Tri. Chennai) (viii) Torrent Energy Limited vs. State of Gujarat [SCA No. 14856 of 2010 and SCA 711 of 2014] 9. He also argued that in the present matter demand is time barred, since time to time appellant had filed statutory return so department cannot take stand that it is only during the audit it can examine the factual position. Thus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o. 9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 service tax exemption is available to services received by the Developer of units of SEZ with approval from the approval committee. In the instant case appellant does not have any approval form the competent authority to provide the services to Developer or SEZ units. In terms of said Notification No. 9/2009 ST, as service provider who provides services to SEZ units or developers of SEZ, has to pay Service tax on services so provided on which service receiver i.e. SEZ units or developer of SEZ may claim refund. 12. We find that even though the sub-contractor provided the service as sub-contractor to the main contractor but it is not under dispute that the service was provided in the SEZ which prima-facie sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
