9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 338X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent. ORDER Briefly stated the facts of the case are that during the scrutiny of the records of the appellant, it was observed that the appellant was engaged in providing the services of Construction (Industrial & Commercial Construction), Manpower Recruitment & Supply Agency's services, Erection & Commissioning, etc., to their clients, who were either developers of SEZ or SEZ units. Test chec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a SEZ developer or a unit in the SEZ subject to certain conditions. As per the said Notification No. 9/2009-S.T., dated 3-3-2009, a service provider who provides service to SEZ units or developers of SEZ, has to pay Service Tax on the service so provided, on which the service receiver, i.e. SEZ unit or developer of SEZ may claim refund. Subsequently, Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. was amended vide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m payment of duty and after 20-5-2009, the exemption continued, and during the interim period, there was no exemption which was clearly an oversight on the part of the Government. Besides legal submissions, several decisions were also cited in support of the claim that in such a situation, exemption would be available. In any case, it was also submitted that the situation was revenue neutral since ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y during the relevant period by oversight, the provisions of exemption got omitted. 5. Under these circumstances, the extended period could not have been invoked and penalty could not have been imposed and further legally also, it can be argued that the intention of the Government was to provide exemption and tax could not have been demanded during the relevant period. 6. In view of the above di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
