Electricity transmission and SEZ export treatment shielded services from tax, while renting demand and CENVAT credit scrutiny survived.

Services for erection, commissioning and installation of transmission towers were treated as covered by the retrospective exemption for services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity, so the related demand was set aside. Services supplied from the Domestic Tariff Area to an SEZ developer were treated as export of services under the SEZ statutory framework, and service tax was not leviable merely because the relevant notification did not grant supplier-based exemption. The demand on renting of immovable property was upheld because the rental income was not reflected in service tax returns and the records supported the demand. Disputed CENVAT credit matters were remanded for fresh verification of supporting documentation before the original authority.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the services of erection, commissioning and installation of transmission towers were covered by the exemption notifications issued for services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity; (ii) whether service tax was leviable on services supplied to the SEZ developer for the relevant period; (iii) whether the demand on renting of immovable property was sustainable; and (iv) whether the disputed CENVAT credit demands required remand for verification of documentation.

Issue (i): whether the services of erection, commissioning and installation of transmission towers were covered by the exemption notifications issued for services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity

Analysis: The services were rendered to power sector entities for erection and installation of transmission towers. In the absence of contrary material showing that the towers were meant for any purpose other than transmission of electricity, the activity fell within the scope of the retrospective exemption granted for services relating to transmission and distribution of electricity.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the demand on this count is set aside.

Issue (ii): whether service tax was leviable on services supplied to the SEZ developer for the relevant period

Analysis: Supplies of services from the Domestic Tariff Area to an SEZ developer were treated as export of services by virtue of the special statutory framework governing SEZs. The overriding effect of the SEZ law meant that the supplies could not be subjected to service tax merely because the exemption notification for the relevant period did not expressly grant supplier-based exemption.

Conclusion: The issue is decided in favour of the assessee and the demand on this count is set aside.

Issue (iii): whether the demand on renting of immovable property was sustainable

Analysis: The rental income was not declared in the service tax returns and the demand was supported by the records examined by the Tribunal.

Conclusion: The issue is decided against the assessee and the demand with interest is upheld.

Issue (iv): whether the disputed CENVAT credit demands required remand for verification of documentation

Analysis: The credit disputes turned on supporting documents that were not produced earlier. As the assessee sought an opportunity to place the documents before the adjudicating authority, fresh verification was necessary.

Conclusion: The issue is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for re-examination of eligibility of the CENVAT credit.

Final Conclusion: The assessee succeeded on the electricity transmission and SEZ-related demands, failed on the renting demand, and obtained remand on the CENVAT credit disputes, while the revenue's appeal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Services integrally connected with electricity transmission and supplies treated as export under the SEZ statutory scheme cannot be taxed as ordinary taxable services in the absence of contrary legal or factual material.

---