2024 (12) TMI 279

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e on the following judgments : - * Randhawa Construction Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise & ST, Vadodara-I -2024 (18) Centax 276 (Tri. -Ahm.) * Shyam Engineers Final Order No.12201/2023 dated. 07.08.2023; * Rishabh Construction Co 2023(10) TMI 596- CESTAT Ahm; * Fedco Paints and Contracts 2017(3) GSTL 364-(Tri- Mum); * Anjani Excavation Operation 2023(7) TMI 205- CESTAT Ahm * Sanghvi Movers Ltd 2018(10) TMI 90- CESTAT Mum; * Neo Structo Construction 2023(2) TMI 289-CESTAT Ahm * GMR Aero Space Engineering Ltd., [2019 (8) TMI 748 ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] TELANGANA AND * GMR Aero Space Engineering Ltd 2019 (7) TMI 1975 - SC Order * Eclrex Service 2023(5) TMI 813-SC * Deloitte Haskins & Sells 2023 (10) TMI 741-CESTAT Ahm * HYDERABAD INFRATECH PVT LTD.2023(10) TMI 497- CESTAT Hyd 3. Shri Mihir G Rayka, Learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that the service provided by the appellant as a sub- contractor to the main contractor for the authorized operation of SEZ is not liable to Se....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce tax. This view is also supported by Board's circular No. 96/7/2007-ST dated 23.08.2007 and 138/7/2011-ST dated 06.05.2011 as elucidated above. Under the circumstances I find M/s Randhawa not eligible for the exemption on the taxable services provided by them as sub-contractor to M/s Samsung." It can be seen that there is no denying of the fact that services were provided by the appellant in the capacity of a subcontractor to a unit located in SEZ area and only argument on the basis of which the learned Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of service tax only on the ground that when the service has been provided by a subcontractor to the contractor of the SEZ Unit, the subcontractor will not be entitled to benefit of notification even though services have been provided to a SEZ unit. 5. We are of the view that since the services rendered to a SEZ unit on behalf of a Contractor who has formally been authorised by SEZ Unit for providing certain goods and services to them, irrespective whether the services directly provided by the main contractor or the main contractor has appointed a subcontractor makes no difference since the service has been rendered to SEZ Uni....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... appellant being sub- contractor provided the service not to the SEZ but to the main contractor i.e. M/s. Khurana Construction, therefore, they are liable to pay the service tax. We find that even though the service was provided by the appellant on the behest of the main contractor M/s. Khurana Construction but there is no dispute that the service was provided in relation to various operations of the SEZ and the services was undisputedly consumed in the SEZ therefore, the appellant has provided the service in SEZ. Accordingly, they are eligible for exemption Notification No. 04/2004-ST dated 31.03.2004. This issue is no longer res-integra as the same has been decided in various decision of the Tribunal cited by the learned counsel. Some of the judgments are reproduced below:- Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai -I Vs. M/s. FEDCO Paints and Contracts - 2017 (3) GSTL 364 ( Tri. Mumbai ) "5. After hearing both the sides, we find that the main ground of the appeal of the Revenue is that the respondent had never provided services directly to the SEZ unit but was contracted as a sub-contractor to provide services to a unit in SEZ. Hence, the benefit of Notification No. 4/2004-S.T. is....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....operation or maintenance of Special Economic Zone, and also includes any person authorised for such purpose by any such developer; (3) "Special Economic Zone" means a zone specified as Special Economic Zone by the Central Government in the notification issued under clause (iii) of Explanation 2 to the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)." 6. It can be seen from the above reproduced notification that the said notification exempts any taxable service provided by any service provider for consumption of the service within a Special Economic Zone, subject to following/adhering to the conditions. It is also undisputed that all the conditions mentioned in the notifications are satisfied by the SEZ developer i.e. M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. On the face of such factual matrix, we find that the adjudicating authority was correct in coming to the conclusion that the proceedings initiated by show cause notice issued needs to be dropped. We also find as regards taxability of the service rendered to the SEZ developer was in dispute before this Tribunal in the case of Sujana Metal Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise - 2011 (273) E.....