9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the settled law. There being no dispute that the services rendered by the appellant to an unit in SEZ who was supposed to follow the provisions of the law, which he did not do so, would not mean that appellant should be saddled with the service tax liability - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL No. ST/31173/2018 - A/31589/2018 - Dated:- 21-12-2018 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri M.V.S. Sridhar, Advocate for the Appellant. Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent /AR for the Respondent. ORDER Per: Mr. M.V. Ravindran 1. This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. HYD-EXCUS-MD- AP2-0058-18-19-ST, dated 30.08.2018. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. On p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal only on the ground that SEZ unit M/s EI Dupont had not filed the declaration required under notification No. 9/2009-ST to the authorised authorities and the same was not produced before the authorities. 5. On perusal of records, I find that the services is rendered by appellant to SEZ unit and the said SEZ unit is authorised to receive the services without payment of service tax. The provisions of Section 51 of the Special Economic Zone Act, 2005 mandates that the provisions of SEZ Act shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent in any act. The provisions of Section 26 of SEZ Act mandates for exemption of service tax, draw backs and concessions to developer. On holistic reading, the services rendered to an SEZ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvices Ltd. v. CCE ST (LTU), Mumbai (supra), under which it was held that even if a service provider was not required to pay duty as per the amended provisions of Notification No. 9/2009-S.T. but paid for some reasons then the service provider was entitled to refund under Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. On the same analogy when services supplied to SEZ are considered as services provided inside a SEZ unit, there is no Service Tax liability on such deemed export as held by CESTAT in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. CCE, Hyderabad [(T.-Bang.)]. 6.The appellant has further relied upon the judgment of Intas Pharma Ltd. v. CST, Ahmedabad (supra) holding that in view of the provisions of Sections 7, 26 and 51 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and collected by Revenue or remitted otherwise by the taxable service provider, inadvertently. Considered in the light of this analysis, the substituted provisions, of clause/sub-paragraph C of Notification No. 15/2009 cannot be inferred to have imposed any disability on the recipient of services consumed wholly within the SEZ, from seeking refund of Service Tax remitted on such transactions, by the providers of such services. It is also relevant to quote the provisions contained in Sec. 26(1)(e) and Sec. 51 of the SEZ Act, 2005 as reproduced below : 26(1)(e): exemption from Service tax under Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) on taxable services provided to a Developer or Unit to carry on the authorized op ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
