Service tax exemption granted for SEZ services despite seized documents preventing compliance verification

CESTAT Allahabad held that the appellant was entitled to service tax exemption for services provided to SEZ units under various notifications. Despite documents being seized during search operations preventing production before Commissioner (Appeals), the tribunal found substantial compliance with notification conditions. The services were provided to duly authorized SEZ units for authorized operations with proper approvals. Following SC precedent in Commissioner of Customs v. Dilip Kumar, the tribunal applied strict construction to eligibility criteria but liberal interpretation to exemption conditions. The impugned order was set aside and appeal allowed.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Whether the Appellant is entitled to exemption from payment of Service Tax for services provided to SEZ units.
2. Whether the extended period of limitation is invocable.
3. Compliance with the conditions of exemption notifications.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to Exemption from Service Tax:

The Appellant argued that services provided to SEZ units were exempt from Service Tax as they were used in authorized operations of SEZ units, which were duly authorized by the UAC. The Department contended that SEZ units engaged in various activities required approval from the Board of Approval (BOA) or UAC to be eligible for exemption. The Tribunal found that the Appellant had substantial compliance with the substantive clause of the Notifications, thus entitling them to exemption from Service Tax for services provided to SEZ units.

2. Extended Period of Limitation:

The Appellant submitted that all transactions were reflected in their Books of Accounts and Balance Sheets, which were available on the Registrar of Companies' website. Therefore, the extended period of limitation was not invocable. The Tribunal did not explicitly address this issue in the final judgment but focused on the compliance with exemption conditions.

3. Compliance with Conditions of Exemption Notifications:

The Tribunal noted that the learned Commissioner relied on various Notifications and a CBEC Circular to deny exemption, citing non-fulfillment of conditions such as obtaining UAC approval and maintaining proper accounts. The Appellant claimed they procured Form A-1 from SEZ units before providing services and that documents were seized during a search. The Tribunal found that almost all conditions of the Notifications were to be fulfilled by SEZ units and developers, and the Appellant had procured necessary approvals. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that there was substantial compliance with the substantive clause of the Notifications.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal held that since there was substantial compliance with the substantive clause of the Notifications, the Appellant was entitled to exemption from payment of Service Tax for services provided to SEZ units. The impugned order was set aside, and the appeal filed by the Appellant was allowed.

---