TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able services rendered to SEZ Developers and SEZ Units by way of a refund. Notification 9/2009 has in a change of policy modified the earlier procedure of automatic exemption from payment of service tax provided in relation to the authorised operations in a SEZ under the SEZ Act. Exemption of service tax under the new notification is by way of a refund and is subject to the various conditions enumerated therein. The appellant is of the view that the main portion of the Notification exempts the levy itself and that the proviso contemplates that even if tax or duty is paid, the exemption is available in the form of Refund. This is not a proper reading of the notification. The exemption provided by the notification is circumscribed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case. The demand of duty and interest made in the impugned order is as per law - Penalty set aside - with regard to the issue of time bar as per the normal time limit i.e. the matter regarding the receipt of Show Cause Notice by the appellant within normal time or whether time-barred alone is remanded to the Original Authority to be decided after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant to state his case both in writing and orally as per law - appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand. - Hon ble Shri P. Dinesha, Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member ( Technical ) Shri T. Ramesh, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Harinder Singh Pal, AC ( AR ) for the Respondent ORDER Per M. Ajit Ku ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Show Cause Notice and demanded an amount of Rs.4,44,232/- towards short-paid service tax demand for the month of March 2009 along with appropriate interest. The adjudicating authority appropriated an amount of Rs.1,65,458/- already paid by the appellant towards service tax demand and Rs.4,772/- towards interest. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalty under section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Assailing the aforesaid findings and the order of the adjudicating authority, the appellants preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order has upheld the order passed by the adjudicating authority. Hence the appellants are before the Tribunal. 3. No cross-objections have been filed by the respondent department ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se notice immediately after, 11.09.2009 or within 1 year from the disputed period. The appellant also placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Tribunal in the case of Krisons Electronic Systems Ltd., Vs. CC, reported in 1996 (87) ELT, 514 (Tri) to submit that the imposition of the penalty in this case is not sustainable. The issue involved in the present case is regarding the interpretation of the exemption notification. Further, even assuming without admitting that the exemption can be availed only by way of refund, the appellant is otherwise eligible for the exemption. Therefore, the appellant was under the bona fide belief that the Appellant was entitled for the exemption during the disputed period as well and appellant need not pay an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Central Excise, Chandigarh vs. Bhalla Enterprises [2004 (173) ELT 225 (SC)], it was held; The basic rule in interpretation of any statutory provision is that the plain words of the statute must be given effect to The same basic rule of interpretation applies to a notification too. It is within the remit of Government to change a policy keeping in view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and other attending circumstances. Hence when an exemption of service tax is made under a new notification which replaces an old notification, the grant of exemption/ refund is subject to the various conditions enumerated therein. The contention of the appellant is hence devoid of merit. 8. The seco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
