M/S. Anabond Limited vs Cce, Chennai Iii
- CitationAppeal No. 14/2014
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The exemption under Notification No. 4/2004-ST dated 31.3.2004 extends not only to services provided to a developer of a Special Economic Zone but also to services provided to a unit situated in the SEZ for consumption within that zone, and the notification must be read as a whole rather than piecemeal. Where the notification's exemption is applicable to a service provider who supplies such services to an SEZ unit, the denial of the exemption on the ground that the notification was misconstrued cannot stand, and the exemption is available to the service provider so long as it satisfies the notification's conditions, including where the service provider was not registered but its status as a service provider is not disputed.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 14/2014 (M-III) dated 2.1.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
M/s. Anabond Limited Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Chennai III Respondent
Appearance
Shri M. Karthikeyan, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri L. Paneer Selvam, AC (AR) for the Respondent
CORAM
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of Hearing / Decision: 24.04.2015
Final Order No. 40449 / 2015
Record placed by Revenue shows that the appellate order was sent by speed post. But there is no acknowledgement due on record. 2. Appellant submits that if its meritorious appeal is thrown at the threshold that shall be converted into de-merited one. Therefore, appellant having taken appropriate steps soon after receipt of the recovery notice, to get copy of the order to seek appeal remedy, the delay may be condoned and appeal admitted.
3. Considering the difficulties above, the delay is condoned and appeal is admitted.
4. Appellant invites attention to applicability of Notification No.4/2004-ST dated 31.3.2004 to submit that the services provided by it to a unit situated in the SEZ grants exemption to it from payment of service tax liability. But, both the authorities below committed error without considering the benediction of the notification.
5. On the other hand Revenue objects to the proposition of appellant submitting that both authorities passed proper order.
6. Heard both sides and perused the record.
7. The appellate order demonstrates piecemeal reading of the notification. It not only grants exemption to the service provider providing service to a developer of SEZ but also service provided to a unit of SEZ for consumption thereof within the said location is exempt. But the authorities erroneously constructed the purview of the notification. There is no finding that the appellant is not a management consultancy service provider to a unit in SEZ. It is on record that it was provider of such service but it was not registered. Appellate authority did not doubt status of the appellant. Therefore, denial of the benefit of the notification to the appellant shall result in mockery when the appellant satisfies condition of the notification. Accordingly, appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. Panda) Judicial Member
Rex
2
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free