Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 28 March, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Final Order No . 20420 / 2014 Appeal(s) Involved: ST/132/2012-DB [Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 96/2011 dated 03/10/2011 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Larger Taxpayer Unit, Bangalore] M/s HEWLETT PACKARD INDIA SALES PVT. LTD. NO.24, SALARPURIA ARENA, HOSUR MAIN ROAD, ADUGODI, BANGALORE-560 001 Appellant(s) Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax - BANGALORE-LTU 100 FT RING ROAD JSS TOWERS, BANASHANKARI-III STAGE, BANGALORE-560085 Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Mr. G. Shivadass, Advocate V. LAKSHMIKUMARAN & V. SRIDHARAN WORLD TRADE CENTRE NO.404-406, 4TH FLOOR, SOUTH WING BRIGADE GATEWAY CAMPUS NO.26/1, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, MALLESWARAM . BANGALORE-560 055 For the Appellant Mr. A.K. Nigam, A.R. For the Respondent CORAM:
HONBLE SHRI B.S.V. MURTHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER HONBLE SHRI S.K. MOHANTY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ________________________________________ Date of Hearing: 128/03/2014 Date of Decision: 28/03/2014 Per B.S.V. MURTHY The issue involved is whether the appellant is liable to pay the amount demanded under Rule 6(3) of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 (CCR) in respect of services provided to SEZ unit along with interest and pay penalty equal to the amount.
2. Learned counsel submitted that in the case of Sobha Developers Ltd. vs. CCE, Bangalore [2012 (25) S.T.R. 136 (Tri.-Bang.)], this Tribunal had held that such services provided to SEZ Unit / SEZ developer would not attract the provisions of Rule 6(3) of CCR. Further, he also relied upon the Section 144 and the Eight Schedule of the Finance Act, 2012 and submitted that in the Eight Schedule, it has been provided under Rule 6, after sub-rule (6), the following sub-rule shall be inserted with effect from the 10th day of February, 2006, namely :
(6A) The provisions of sub-rules (1), (2), (3) and (4) shall not be applicable in case the taxable services are provided, without payment of service tax, to a Unit in a Special Economic Zone or to a Developer of a Special Economic Zone for their authorized operations.
3. In this case there is no dispute and both sides agree that the services have been provided to SEZ Unit / SEZ developer. In these circumstances, the impugned order has no merit and, accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, to the appellant.
(Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in open court)
(S.K. MOHANTY) (B.S.V. MURTHY) JUDICIAL MEMBER TECHNICAL MEMBER
/vc/