TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (5) TMI 582
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tax under the above categories and confirmed an amount of Rs.1,39,50,173/- under the category of 'Works Contract Services' and Rs.4,56,404/- under the category of 'Supply of Tangible Goods Services' along with interest and various penalties. In addition, an amount of Rs.5,31,33,963/- was also confirmed under the category of 'Works Contract Services' for services rendered as sub-contractor to the SEZ units. The impugned order also confirms an amount of Rs.14,24,728/- liable to be paid for the road construction services undertaken by the appellant for MRPL. The Commissioner also denied the cenvat credit amount of Rs.71,97,381/- claimed by the appellant. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant is in appeal before us. 3. The Learned Counsel submits that during the period of dispute, the appellant was predominantly executing composite works contracts in relation to setting-up of Special Economic Zone (SEZ) unit as a sub-contractor and also executed road construction works. For the Financial Year 2008-2009 And 20092010 self-assessed the value of taxable services and also disclosed non-taxable or exempted services such as road work etc. It is also submitted that for the financial years ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same is allowed, the entire service tax demand confirmed in the impugned order gets discharged. 3.2 With regard to demand of tax of Rs.14,24,728/- in respect of road construction work undertaken for MRPL, it is submitted that there was no liability to pay service tax on the said road work since they have opted to pay service tax on the gross value and accordingly, they have charged service tax of Rs.14,24,728/- and paid the same partly by cash and partly by utilizing cenvat credit of Rs.7,65,970/- availed on Bitumen which was exclusively used for the said project. Hence, the demand in this regard cannot be sustained. With regard to road construction work undertaken for Larsen & Turbo, service tax was discharged on the value of service portion determined as per Rule 2A of the Service Tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006. 3.3 With regard to Supply of Tangible Goods and the demand of service tax of Rs.4,56,404/- is not disputed and it is submitted that Rs.1,74,550/- along with interest of Rs.66,861/- was paid during investigation and the balance amount of Rs.2,81,854/- was paid at a later date, hence claimed the benefit of waiver of penalty as per Section 80 of the Finance ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Revenue is that the appellant has provided services to ANS Constructions Ltd., New Delhi, Vishal Structurals Pvt. Ltd. Mumbai, IVRCL Infrastructures and Projects Ltd. and M/s. SKE & C-KCT-JV, who are neither SEZ developers nor SEZ units but the contractors for SEZ unit/developer. Therefore, the services rendered by the appellant are not received by SEZ unit/developer, hence the exemption contained in the Notification No. 4/2004-S.T., dated 31-3-2004 is not applicable to the appellant as they have not provided services directly to a SEZ unit. For convenience of our understanding, the relevant Notification is reproduced below: Notification No. 4/2004-S.T., dated 31-3-2004 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. 17/2002Service Tax, dated the 21st November, 2002, published in the Gazette of India, Extraord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ptions, drawbacks and concessions on the goods and services allowed to a developer or Co-developer, as the case may be, shall also be available to the contractors including subcontractors appointed by such developer or Co-developer but continues to deny the benefit stating that it does not speak of services provided to the SEZ unit, which appears to us as absurd since the Commissioner in the impugned order noted that 'the appellant had enclosed a copy of the list of services specified in clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 as approved by the Development Commissioner of MSEZ for M/s. OMPL Ltd.' and stated that the units in the SEZ actually used the above services and maintained the proper accounts in relation to the authorized operations in the SEZ. The Table below clearly establishes the fact that the Main contractors were service providers to the respective SEZ units. Sl. No. Name of the main Contractor Name of the SEZ Unit Nature of work Amount (Rs.) 1 ANS Constructions Ltd., OMPL Ltd. Construction of site grading, roads, storm water drain and compound wall 13,37,32,608 2 Vishal Structurals Pvt. Ltd. OMPL Ltd. Constr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itted that during the period of dispute, there is no time limit for taking cenvat credit and the limitation was introduced only from 01.09.2014; hence, rejection of cenvat credit on this account cannot be sustained. With regard to invoices addressed to persons other than the appellant, it is submitted that they had paid for the input services and rendered output services to KNR Constructions; hence, credit cannot be denied on the ground that the invoice mentions the name of KNR Constructions instead of the appellant's name. With regard to all other discrepancies, it is submitted that the appellant has all duty-paying documents in support of their claim, which will be produced for verification. 8.1 The Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 for allowing cenvat credit the relevant Rule reads as follows: RULE 4. Conditions for allowing CENVAT credit. - (1) The CENVAT credit in respect of inputs may be taken immediately on receipt of the inputs in the factory of the manufacturer or in the premises of the provider of output service [or in the premises of the job worker, in case goods are sent directly to the job worker on the direction of the manufacturer or the provider of output servic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t credit during the disputed period. Accordingly, the ground on time limit alleged by the Revenue is rejected and cenvat credit to be allowed. However, the issue is being remanded to verify the payment of cenvat credit by the appellant in all the cases listed at Para 30.12 of the impugned order, wherein the invoices are addressed to a person other than the appellant. The Commissioner has also noted some of the discrepancies in the documents which are placed before him for availment of cenvat credit, which now the appellant claims that for these discrepancies, they have necessary documents to prove the eligibility of cenvat credit, which will be placed before the adjudicating authority for necessary verification. Accordingly, we remand the issue of eligibility of cenvat credit only to the extent of verification of documents as long as there is no dispute that tax has been paid by the appellant on the service. 9. With regard to Works Contract Services rendered to various parties outside SEZ, the demand confirmed by the Commissioner in the impugned order is to extent of Rs.1,39,50,173/- which is not disputed by the appellant is upheld. The impugned order also appropriates an amount....