Asian Hotels (West ) Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai

(Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 23/STC-I/BR/10-11 dt. 09/09/2010 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-I, Mumbai )

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

============================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :

the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the :

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy :

of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :

authorities?

=============================================================

Asian Hotels (West ) Ltd.

:

Appellant

VS

Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai :

Respondent

Appearance

Shri Vinay Jain, C.A. for Appellant

Shri R.K. Das Deputy Commissioner (A.R) for respondent

CORAM:

Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Mr. P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)

Date of hearing : 15/04/2015 Date of decision : 15/04/2015

ORDER NO.

Per : M.V. Ravindran

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 23/STC-I/BR/10-11 dt. 09/09/2010.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. On perusal of the records, it transpired that the issue involved in this case is regarding the discharge of service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism, for the services received during the period 1.1.2005 to 30.9.2006. Both sides agreed that for the period prior to 18.4.2006, the service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism will not apply as per the judgment of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom) it has been upheld by the Apex Court. It was brought to our notice that Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue vide Circular No.276/8/2009-CX8A dt. 26.9.2011 has clarified that the service tax liability on any taxable service provided by a non-resident or a person located outside India, to a recipient in India, would arise w.e.f. 18.4.2006. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order to the extent it confirms demand of the duty for the period prior to 18.4.2006, consequently the interest liability and the penalty is also set aside on this amount.

4. As regards the service tax liability on the services received w.e.f.18.4.2006, we find that the said service tax liability would arise on the appellant as per the provisions of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. We uphold the impugned order to the extent it confirms demand of service tax liability after 18.4.2006 along with interest and hold to that extent, the appeal of the appellant fails. At the same time, we set aside the penalties imposed on this part of the demand confirmed and upheld by us as the issue of taxability under reverse charge mechanism was being hotly contested.

5. The appeal is disposed of as indicated hereinabove.

(Pronounced in court)

(P.S.Pruthi) Member (Technical)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial)

Sm

??

??

??

??

2