9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 820X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ort in respect of work performed by the Appellant, copy of invoices, Form No.A-1 issued by ONGC Petro Additions Limited describing the services to be availed under Notification No.40/2012 dated 20.06.2012 including the details of DTA Service Provider, Form No.A-2 certified by Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise andCustoms and relied upon judgments of various Tribunals and High Courts and Supreme Court. 1.3 The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of service tax vide OIO dated 17.01.2018 without considering above documentary evidence and relied upon judgments. 1.4 The Appellant filed the Appeal before Hon'ble Commissioner (Appeals) on various grounds. 1.5 The Appellate Authority also rejected the Appeal of the Appellant on the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue pertains to interpretation of Notification No.40/2012-S.T. dated 20.06.2012 and Notification No.12/2013- S.T. dated 01.07.2013. The appellant provided services to SEZ unit under the bonafide belief that no service tax payment is required as the supplies made to SEZ unit. Accordingly, there is no malafide intention to evade the payment of service tax during the material period. Therefore, the show cause notice issued for extended period is patently time barred. He placed reliance on the following judgments : - CESTAT Order dated 14.05.2024 in the case of ArdexEndura India Pvt. Ltd. Commissioner Versus FEDCO Paints and Contracts 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. J207 (S.C.). Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I Versus FEDCO Paints and Contracts 2017 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rm 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. 5. Accordingly, we are of the view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
