Purposive interpretation of residential house exemption: unregistered purchase agreement alone does not defeat relief, but investment must be verified...
CESTAT held that subcontracted works executed for authorised operations in an SEZ qualified for Notification No. 4/2004-S.T. because the services were for consumption within the SEZ and had Development Commissioner approval; exemption could not be denied merely because the appellant acted as a sub-contractor, so that demand was set aside. It also held that no time limit governed availment of Cenvat credit during the relevant period, so denial on delay was unsustainable; however, the credit issue was remanded for verification of invoices, documentary eligibility and tax payment. Demands for works contract services rendered outside the SEZ, supply of tangible goods, and collected service tax on road work were sustained with interest, while limitation was upheld for the non-SEZ demand. Penalties were set aside pending fresh quantification.
CESTAT held that subcontracted works executed for authorised operations in an SEZ qualified for Notification No. 4/2004-S.T. because the services were for consumption within the SEZ and had Development Commissioner approval; exemption could not be denied merely because the appellant acted as a sub-contractor, so that demand was set aside. It also held that no time limit governed availment of Cenvat credit during the relevant period, so denial on delay was unsustainable; however, the credit issue was remanded for verification of invoices, documentary eligibility and tax payment. Demands for works contract services rendered outside the SEZ, supply of tangible goods, and collected service tax on road work were sustained with interest, while limitation was upheld for the non-SEZ demand. Penalties were set aside pending fresh quantification.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 4801
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
