SEZ subcontract exemption and belated CENVAT credit claims were partly upheld, while undisputed service tax liabilities were sustained.

Tax exemption under the SEZ regime was available for services consumed within a Special Economic Zone even where the provider acted as a sub-contractor, provided the notification conditions were met, and the SEZ-related service tax demand was set aside. Taxability of road construction and supply of tangible goods services was accepted where liability was undisputed, so those demands were sustained. CENVAT credit could not be denied for the disputed period merely because it was taken belatedly, since no time bar then applied; however, invoices with name or documentary discrepancies required factual verification, so the credit issue was remanded. The remaining tax, interest and penalty computations outside the SEZ were retained only to the extent consistent with the remand.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether services rendered by a sub-contractor for an SEZ project were entitled to exemption under the applicable SEZ service tax notification; (ii) whether the demands relating to road construction and supply of tangible goods services were liable to be sustained; (iii) whether denial of CENVAT credit on the ground of belated availment and documentary discrepancies was sustainable; (iv) whether the remaining demand outside the SEZ and the related interest and penalties required confirmation or remand.

Issue (i): Whether services rendered by a sub-contractor for an SEZ project were entitled to exemption under the applicable SEZ service tax notification.

Analysis: The exemption notification covered taxable services provided for consumption within a Special Economic Zone, subject to the stated conditions. The services were rendered in the chain of authorised contractors for SEZ units, and the fact that the appellant acted as a sub-contractor did not alter the character of the services consumed within the SEZ. The statutory scheme under the SEZ regime, including the protection extended to contractors and sub-contractors, supported the availability of exemption where the end-use was within the SEZ and the conditions were satisfied.

Conclusion: The demand of service tax on SEZ-related sub-contract works was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether the demands relating to road construction and supply of tangible goods services were liable to be sustained.

Analysis: The demand relating to road construction for MRPL was not disputed on facts and the tax had been collected and discharged. The demand under supply of tangible goods services was also not disputed, and only payment/appropriation aspects were raised. In the absence of a substantive challenge to taxability, the confirmed liability was upheld.

Conclusion: The service tax demands under road construction and supply of tangible goods services were sustained in favour of the Revenue.

Issue (iii): Whether denial of CENVAT credit on the ground of belated availment and documentary discrepancies was sustainable.

Analysis: For the disputed period, the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 did not prescribe a time bar for taking credit, and the later insertion of a restriction could not be applied retrospectively. The objection based solely on delayed availment was therefore not acceptable. However, where invoices contained discrepancies or were issued in another name, the genuineness and eligibility of credit required factual verification. The proper course was to allow the claim in principle and remand the matter for document verification and factual reconciliation.

Conclusion: The time-bar objection was rejected, and the CENVAT credit issue was remanded for verification in favour of the assessee.

Issue (iv): Whether the remaining demand outside the SEZ and the related interest and penalties required confirmation or remand.

Analysis: The admitted demand for works contract services outside the SEZ was sustainable, but the exact adjustment of payments already made and the quantum of balance liability depended on the outcome of the CENVAT credit verification. As the tax credit question was remanded, the consequential computation of interest and penalty could not be finalised at that stage. The appropriate course was to retain the confirmed tax component while remanding the arithmetical and documentary verification aspects.

Conclusion: The remaining demand was partly confirmed and partly remanded, and the penalties were set aside as consequential.

Final Conclusion: The appeal resulted in partial relief by setting aside the SEZ subcontract demand and remanding the CENVAT credit and related appropriation issues, while sustaining the undisputed tax liabilities and leaving the consequential computations to be finalised on remand.

Ratio Decidendi: Where taxable services are ultimately consumed within an SEZ and statutory conditions are met, exemption is not lost merely because the provider acts as a sub-contractor; likewise, CENVAT credit cannot be denied for the disputed period on the basis of a subsequently introduced time limit, though factual eligibility may still require verification.

---