2024 (7) TMI 1358

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... BINU TAMTA:  1. Batch of appeals have been filed by the revenue, challenging the order in Appeal dated 22.03.2017 whereby the refund claims filed by M/s CIPLA, Special Economic Zone [SEZ] unit on input services was allowed. 2. The respondent is manufacturer and exporter of pharmaceutical products having manufacturing facilities at Indore SEZ. During the relevant period, the respondent was availing various services in relation to its authorised operation, such as construction service, telecommunication service, architecture service, consultancy engineer service, manpower recruitment service, security service, etc. Since the services received by the units located at SEZ were exempt from service tax by way of refund claim under Notific....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y complying with the conditions therein is upon the assessee, which in the present case, they have failed to do so. The learned AR referred to the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hotel Leela-Venture Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Cus.(Gen.) Mumbai 2009 (234) ELT 389 (SC), Eagle Flask Industries Ltd VS. Commissioner of C. Ex. Pune 2004 (171) ELT 296 (SC), Commissioner of Customs, (Import), Mumbai vs. Dilip Kumar and Company 2018 (361) ELT 577 (SC). 6. On the other hand, the submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that the issue is no more res-integra and has been settled in favour of the assessee that the SEZ unit has an unequivocal exemption from payment of service tax on input services. Relying on the statutory provisions of s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....2) TMI 1178-CESTAT CHENNAI. (xi) Norasia Container Lines vs. CCE, New Delhi 2011 (23) STR 295 (Tri.-Del.). (xii) Intas Pharma Ltd. vs. CST, Ahmedabad, 2013 (32) STR 543 (Tri.-Ahmd.). (xiii) SRF Limited vs. CC, CE and ST, LTU New Delhi 2019 (7) TMI 1789-CESTAT NEW DELHI. (xiv) Metlife Global Operations Support Centre (P.) Ltd. vs. CST, New Delhi, 2021 (46) GSTL 418 (Tri.-Del.). (xv) Makers Mart vs. CCE & ST, Jaipur 2016 (44) STR 126I (Tri.-Del.). (xvi) Makers Mart vs. CCE & ST, Jaipur 2016 (43) STR 309 (Tri.-Del.). (xvii) Tieto Software Technologies vs. CCE, Pune, III 2016 (42) STR 689 (Tri.-Mumbai). 7. We have examined the decisions cited by the learned AR, however, they are inapplicable in the facts of the present case in as....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ected in the absence of any legal authority. v). Therefore, logically there is no need for an exemption notification under any of these three Acts or to comply with any of the conditions laid down in the exemption notifications issued under the three acts while dealing with levy of tax/duty on the SEZ units. Resultantly, the exemption notification issued under any of the enactments referred to and the conditions prescribed therein are therefore redundant and have no application by virtue of the provisions of section 51 of the SEZ Act, overriding the charging sections in the other laws. vi.) The terms and conditions subject to which the exemptions are to be granted under section 26 (1) have to be prescribed by the rules made by the Centr....