SEZ service exemption under conditional notification prevented rule 6 Cenvat credit demands for authorised operations.

Services provided to SEZ units or developers were treated as not constituting export of service for purposes of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, because the services were not used outside India within the export rules and the SEZ regime did not by itself override the credit scheme. Rule 6 restrictions therefore did not fall away merely because the recipient was in an SEZ. However, Notification No. 4/2004-S.T. was viewed as a conditional exemption for services used in authorised SEZ operations, and that conditional scheme supported non-application of rule 6 demands for the relevant period. The result was that rule 6 based demands were set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether services provided to Special Economic Zone units or developers constituted export of service and were therefore outside the scope of the restrictions in rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004; and (ii) whether Notification No. 4/2004-S.T. dated 31-03-2004, being a conditional exemption, prevented the application of rule 6 to the services so provided.

Issue (i): whether services provided to Special Economic Zone units or developers constituted export of service and were therefore outside the scope of the restrictions in rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004.

Analysis: Rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 applied to exempted services and required either maintenance of separate accounts or reversal/payment where exempted and taxable services were both provided. The definition of export of service under the Export of Service Rules, 2005 treated export as service used outside India, whereas services rendered to Special Economic Zone units or developers were not outside India for that purpose. The Special Economic Zones Act, 2005 created a distinct statutory regime granting exemptions to SEZ transactions, but it did not override the separate operation of the Cenvat credit scheme for a domestic service provider in the absence of a specific exemption in the Cenvat rules. Accordingly, the SEZ character of the recipient did not by itself exclude the services from rule 6.

Conclusion: the services were not export of service for purposes of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, and the appellant could not succeed on that ground.

Issue (ii): whether Notification No. 4/2004-S.T. dated 31-03-2004, being a conditional exemption, prevented the application of rule 6 to the services so provided.

Analysis: Notification No. 4/2004-S.T. exempted taxable services provided in relation to authorized operations in SEZs, subject to the statutory conditions governing such clearance and utilization. The exemption was held to be conditional and akin to other conditional exemption schemes where the benefit is not treated as an unrestricted taxable clearance. On that basis, the Tribunal followed the line of authority holding that rule 6 should not be mechanically applied so as to defeat the intended benefit of the conditional scheme. The later insertion of rule 6(6A) was not treated as retrospective, but the nature of the notification and the SEZ scheme supported non-application of the demand under rule 6 for the periods in dispute.

Conclusion: Notification No. 4/2004-S.T. operated as a conditional exemption, and the demand or restriction under rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 did not apply.

Final Conclusion: the appeals succeeded and the impugned demands based on rule 6 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 were set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: where a service provided to an SEZ unit or developer is covered by a conditional SEZ exemption scheme, it is not to be treated as an exempted service attracting rule 6 restrictions on Cenvat credit merely because the recipient is in SEZ, unless the governing credit rules specifically provide otherwise.

---