The Ahmedabad Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), remanded back matter to consider judicial precedents that even though there was no direct providing of services to developer of Special Economic Zone (SEZ), there is no dispute that the services were consumed.
The case of the department is that since the appellant, B T Patel & Co, have provided the service to M/s. Aquatec Electricals Ltd and M/s. Systematic Conscom Ltd. who are not developer or the unit located in Kandla Special Economic Zone therefore, the notification no. 4/2004-ST dated 31.3.2004 is not eligible to the appellant accordingly, the service tax demand was confirmed vide Order-In-Original which is impugned herein, therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant.
Amal Dave, Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that even though the appellant has not directly provided the services to the developer of SEZ i.e. M/s. Motherson Sumi Systems Ltd. but there is no dispute that the services were consumed within Kandla Special Economic Zone therefore, the service exempted under notification no. 4/2004-ST dated 31.3.2004.
G. Kirupanandan, Assistant Commissioner (AR) appearing on behalf of the revenue reiterated the finding of the impugned order. He submits that as per the notification, it is clear that only those services are exempted which are consumed in SEZ and provided to the developer of SEZ or to a unit in SEZ. In the present case, the service of construction of factory building was neither provided to the developer of SEZ nor to unit located in SEZ however, the service was provided to the persons who are not falling under these categories.
The Coram consisting of Ramesh Nair, Judicial Member and Raju, Technical Member observed that “The fact is that the service provider has not supplied the service directly to the SEZ developer or to the unit of SEZ but the service was indeed provided in the premises of the SEZ. However, the adjudicating authority had no occasion to deal with all the judgments which were delivered subsequently therefore, the entire matter needs to be reconsidered in the light of these judgments cited by the appellant and also considering the facts of this case.”
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to TaxscanAdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.
