2023 (10) TMI 1379 - AT - Service Tax

Exemption from service tax vide Notification No. 9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 as amended by Notification No. 15/2009-ST dated 20.05/2009 - appellant being sub-contractor provided service in SEZ on behalf of the main Contractor - HELD THAT - Revenue has denied the exemption on payment of service tax under Notification No. 09/2009-ST only for the reason that the appellant being a sub-contractor, have not provided service directly to the SEZ unit or developer of SEZ. On perusal of notification, it is found that notification prescribes that the service which are provided in relation to authorised operation in SEZ and received by a developer or unit of SEZ are exempted from whole of service tax. As per this plain reading of the notification, the only criteria is that the service which is provided, should be in relation to the authorised operations in SEZ and received by a developer or unit of SEZ. In the facts of the present case, there is no dispute that appellant have provided service which are approved by the concerned authority in relation to the authorised operations in SEZ therefore, even the appellant is sub-contractor but the condition of providing service to authorised operation has been satisfied. Therefore, exemption cannot be denied to the appellant. There is no doubt that service provided by the appellant in the capacity of sub-contractor but in relation to the authorised operations in SEZ are clearly eligible for exemption Notification No. 9/2009- ST dated 03.03.2009 as amended - The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant, as a sub-contractor providing service in SEZ on behalf of the main Contractor, is eligible for exemption from service tax under Notification No. 9/2009-ST.

Comprehensive details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 9/2009-ST:
The department contended that only the main contractor is eligible for exemption, while the appellant, as a sub-contractor, is not eligible for the exemption as they do not provide service directly to the SEZ unit or developer. However, the appellant argued that the service provided in the SEZ is exempted regardless of whether it is provided by the sub-contractor or main contractor. The Tribunal noted that the notification requires the service to be provided in relation to authorized operations in SEZ and received by a developer or unit of SEZ for exemption. In this case, it was undisputed that the appellant provided services approved by the concerned authority in relation to authorized operations in SEZ. Therefore, even though the appellant was a sub-contractor, the condition of providing service to authorized operations in SEZ was met, making them eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 9/2009-ST. The Tribunal referred to previous decisions to support this interpretation.

Conclusion:
Based on the above analysis, the Tribunal concluded that the service provided by the appellant, as a sub-contractor, in relation to authorized operations in SEZ, is eligible for exemption under Notification No. 9/2009-ST. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.