2023 (10) TMI 1379

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....HNICAL) Shri D.D. Rishi, Advocatefor the Appellant Shri P. Ganesan, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent RAMESH NAIR : The issue involved in the present case is whether the appellant being sub-contractor provided service in SEZ on behalf of the main Contractor, is eligible for exemption from service tax vide Notification No. 9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 as amended by Notification No. 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... for exemption under Notification No. 09/2009-ST. 4. Shri P. Ganesan, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the record. We find that Revenue has denied the exemption on payment of service tax under Notification No. 09/2009-ST only for the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....-contractor but the condition of providing service to authorised operation has been satisfied. Therefore, exemption cannot be denied to the appellant. This issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the following decisions; (a) Sudhir Chand Jain vs. CCE - 2018 (8) GSTL 302 (Tri. All) (b) CST vs. Fedco Paints and Contracts - 2017(3) GSTL 364 (Tri.- Mumbai) From the above jud....