2024 (5) TMI 73

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ments vide Panchnama. Statement of Shri Manoj Kumar, Manager "Operations" was also recorded. The Appellant informed the Department that earlier they were registered under "Maintenance and Repair Service", which was not correct; that they are in the process of obtaining registration for their new premises under "Cleaning Service". Show Cause Notice SCN was issued which the Appellant claimed that it was not received and therefore the Appellant neither could file any reply to the SCN nor could participate in the adjudication proceedings. The adjudication order was passed ex-parte. Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand of Service Tax amounting to Rs.1,58,46,230/- as proposed in the SCN alongwith applicable interest and also imposed penalty of equal amount under Section 78, besides imposed penalties of Rs.10,000/- each under Sections 77(1) and 77(2) of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Being aggrieved, the Appellant filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority and the learned Commissioner (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal and passed the following order:- "(1) I hereby re-determine and confirm Rs.1,12,92,386.00 (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakh Ninety Two Thousand Three Hundred and E....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ance Sheets are available on the website portal of Registrar of Companies (MCA). Accordingly, extended period of limitation is not invocable. 7. We find from the records that the Appellant has provided Housekeeping Services to M/s Unitech Realty Projects Ltd. at site SEZ, Tikri, Gurgaon, Haryana. The Appellant is a private limited company and their accounts are subject to statutory audit and they have discharged the Service Tax liability wherever applicable. 8. We find that learned Commissioner has relied on the following Notifications for denying exemption to the services provided by the Appellant to SEZ units:- (i) 9/2009-ST dated 31.03.2009 [Effective upto 28.02.2011] (ii) 17/2011-ST dated 01.03.2011 [From 01.01.2011 to 01.07.2012] (iii) 40/2011-ST dated 20.06.2011 [From 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013] (iv) 12/2013-ST dated 01.07.2013 [From 01.07.2013 onwards] The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also relied on the CBEC Circular No.142/11/2011-ST dated 18.05.2011 and held that the exemption cannot be granted to the Appellant as none of the conditions of the aforesaid notifications has been fulfilled, which are : (a) The SEZ unit or the developer of SEZ is to get approval....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ttached as Annexure A-7 series with the appeal paper book from pages 64-100. 10. We find that there is no dispute that the services have been provided to "SEZ units"; "SEZ units to whom services have been provided were duly authorized by UAC to receive certain services without payment of Service Tax for use in the authorized operations"; "SEZ units were issued duly approved list of specified services in proper prescribed form"; there is no dispute that the services provided by the Appellant were used in authorized operations of recipient SEZ units. 11. We find that the Hon"ble Supreme Court has consistently held that the eligibility clause of exemption Notification has to be given strict meaning of which the Notifications should be interpreted in terms of its language and once an Assessee satisfies the eligibility clause, the exemption clause may be construed liberally. Thus, an eligibility criteria deserves a strict construction, although construction of a condition thereof may be given a liberal meaning. Hon"ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar & Company reported as 2018 (361) E.L.T. 577 (S.C.) held thus:- "16. The purpose ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Court applied different tests when considering the ambiguity of the exemption notification which requires strict construction and after doing so at the stage of applying the notification, it came to the conclusion that one has to consider liberally. 38. We will now consider another Constitution Bench decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, New Delhi v. Hari Chand Shri Gopal, (2011) 1 SCC 236 = 2010 (260) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) [hereinafter referred as "Hari Chand case" for brevity]. We need not refer to the facts of the case which gave rise to the questions for consideration before the Constitutional Bench. K.S. Radhakrishnan, J., who wrote the unanimous opinion for the Constitution Bench, framed the question, viz., whether manufacturer of a specified final product falling under Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 is eligible to get the benefit of exemption of remission of Excise duty on specified intermediate goods as per the Central Government Notification dated 11-8-1994, if captively consumed for the manufacture of final product on the ground that the records kept by it at the recipient end would indicate its "intended use" and "substantial compliance" with procedure....