9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (10) TMI 820 - AT - Service TaxDemand of service tax by denying the benefit of N/N. 40/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 N/N. 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.13 - Appellant provided services to M/s Samsung Engineering Co Ltd, Dahej, SEZ without proper authorization from competent authority in Form No.A-1/A-2 - HELD THAT - During the reply to show cause notice the appellant have submitted form No. A-1 and A-2, despite that the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand denying the exemption. Even though, the appellant have not submitted the form No.A-1 and A-2 at the relevant time but at later date the exemption cannot be denied. Moreover, this Tribunal has taken a view in various judgments cited by the appellant that so long provision of service in SEZ unit is not disputed the substantial benefit of exemption cannot be denied merely fornon submission of form A-1 and A-2. This Tribunal has taken a view that in such situation form A-1 and A-2 is procedural requirement and for which the exemption cannot be denied. This Tribunal has also taken a view since, as per the SEZ Act the supply of service to SEZ is otherwise not taxable and the provision of SEZ Act override any other Act, the denial of exemption in the present case is not justified. The appellant are not required to pay service tax in respect of service admittedly, provided to SEZ unit. Therefore, the demand is not sustainable. Hence, the impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
Issues:
1. Appellant provided services to SEZ unit without proper authorization. 2. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 40/2012-ST and Notification No. 12/2013-ST. 3. Dispute regarding payment of service tax for services provided to SEZ unit. 4. Interpretation of SEZ Act, 2005 and relevant notifications. 5. Submission of Form A-1 and A-2 for exemption. Analysis: 1. The Appellant provided services to SEZ units without proper authorization, leading to a demand for service tax. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand without considering the documentary evidence provided by the Appellant, resulting in the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. The Appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 40/2012-ST and Notification No. 12/2013-ST for services provided to SEZ units. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal based on lack of proper authorization in Form A-2, prompting the Appellant to file a further appeal. 3. The Appellant argued that the services provided to SEZ units should be exempt from service tax under the SEZ Act, 2005. They contended that even if service tax was payable, the SEZ unit was eligible for a refund, making the situation revenue neutral. The Appellant also claimed that the show cause notice for an extended period was time-barred. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions and records, concluding that the Appellant was eligible for exemption from service tax for services provided to SEZ units under the relevant notifications. The Tribunal held that the failure to submit Form A-1 and A-2 at the relevant time did not justify denying the exemption, as the SEZ Act overrides any other law in this regard. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, stating that they were not required to pay service tax for services provided to SEZ units. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed based on the interpretation of the SEZ Act and relevant notifications. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the final decision in favor of the Appellant.
|
