TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1409
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s placed before us. We find that the decision as reported in 2024 (18) CENTAX-276 (Tri-Ahm.) at Para 4, 5 and 6 observed as below: Para-4. "Having heard both the sides, we find that only question which needs to be answered by us is whether the appellant being a subcontractor to the main contractor M/s. Samsung Engineering Company Limited which was appointed for rendering certain services to M/s. ONGC, located at SEZ Dahej, is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 9/2009-ST dated 03.03.2009 as amended by various notifications being a subcontractor. Before proceeding further in the matter, it will be relevant to reproduce here the arguments on which the demand has been confirmed by the learned Adjudicating Authority in order-in-original :- "22.6. I therefore find that from the overall facts of the case seen in the light of the existing provisions, in-admissibility of the exemption on the taxable services provided by a sub contractor to the Contractor of a SEZ Unit is expressly clear. Nowhere in the SEZ Act, 2005 and the Rules framed there-under or under any Notification issued in relation thereto as well as under any statutory provisions of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amende....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....endered to SEZ Unit, the benefit of exemption notification is available to the appellant. While holding the above view, we take note of this Tribunal's decision in the case of M/s. Shyam Engineers Final Order No.12201/2023 dated 07.08.2023. The relevant extract of the same is reproduced below:- "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 reason that the appellant being a sub-contractor, have not provided service directly to the SEZ unit or developer of SEZ. On perusal of notification, we find that notification prescribes that the service which are provided in relation to authorised operation in SEZ and received by a developer or unit of SEZ are exempted from whole of service tax. As per this plain reading of the notification, the only criteria is that the service which is provided, should be in relation to the authorised operations in SEZ and received by a developer or unit of SEZ. In the facts of the present case, there is no dispute that appellant have provided service which are approved by the concerned autho....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... is not applicable. It is undisputed that during the period 1-4-2005 to 31-3-2009 the respondent had rendered various services to the unit situated in SEZ and being developed by the SEZ developer. It is also undisputed that appellant was a sub-contractor. On this factual matrix, we have to now consider the Notification No. 4/2004-S.T. which reads as under : "Service tax exemption to services provided to a Developer or units of Special Economic Zone - Notification No. 17/2002-S.T. superseded In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the erstwhile Ministry of Finance and Company Affairs (Department of Revenue), No. 17/2002-Service Tax, dated 21-11-2002, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (i) dated 21-11-2002, vide, G.S.R 777(E), dated 21-11-2002, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts taxable service of any description as defined in clause (90) of sub-sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....L.T. 112 (Tri.-Bang.) and this Tribunal came to a conclusion that where the services are rendered to SEZ or a unit in SEZ, as long as it is rendered for consumption in a Special Economic Zone, the services are exempt. We also note that the provisions of Section 26 of the Special Economic Zone overrides provisions of other law and exempts any services or taxes if the same are consumed in Special Economic Zone. 7. In view of the foregoing and the authoritative judicial pronouncement, we find no merits in the appeal filed by the Revenue and the same stands rejected and hold impugned order is correct and legal and does not require any interference. cross-objection is also disposed of ." Sudhir Chand Jain vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Ghaziabad - 2018 (8) GSTL 302 (Tri.All) "6. Having considered the rival contentions I hold that the appellant as sub contractor have provided service through their contractor M/s. Anurag Enterprises for construction of SDF, Block L at NSEZ for to the Deputy Commissioner of the SEZ. This proposition has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Imagic Creative and also by Hon'ble Patna High Court in the case of Hindustan Dorr Ol....