C.C.E., Kanpur vs M/S. Young Style Overseas

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? No 2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? Yes 3. Whether Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order? Seen 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities? Yes

Appeal No.ST/584/2009-CU[DB]

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.73-ST/APPL/KNP/2009, dated 13.04.2009 passed by the C.C.E.(Appeals), Kanpur]

C.C.E., Kanpur Appellant

Vs.

M/s. Young Style Overseas Respondent

Appearance

Shri BB Sharma, DR - for the appellant

Shri Brijesh Verma, Consultant - for the respondent

CORAM: Honble Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

Final Order No.52542/2015, dated 24.07.2015

Per Mr. R.K. Singh :

Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 13.04.2009 which set aside the Order-in-Original dated 07.11.2008 in terms of which the respondents refund claim for Rs.13,11,456/- was rejected.

2. The respondent had filed the refund claim on the ground that it had paid the service tax on the basis of commission paid to foreign based agents under reverse charge mechanism during the period June, 2005 to March, 2006, which was not payable during the relevant period as Section 66A was inserted in the Finance Act, 1994 only w.e.f. 18.04.2006. The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the liability to service tax under reverse charge mechanism took effect only from 18.04.2006 with the introduction of Section 66A ibid and therefore during the relevant period, the service tax was not payable by the respondent and as a consequence, he set aside the Order-in-Original dated 07.11.2008 with consequential relief.

3. Revenue is in appeal on the ground that as per Rule 2(1) (d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the respondent was required to pay the service tax on the amount of commission paid to commission agents aborad in view of the fact that the Business Auxiliary Service (BAS), which commission agents rendered to the respondent was liable to tax from 09.04.2002 itself.

4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. The service recipient under reverse charge mechanism in respect of services imported became liable to pay the service tax only from the date of introduction of Section 66A ibid, i.e., w.e.f. 18.04.2006. This issue is no longer res integra as per the judgement of the Supreme Court Indian National Shipowners Assn Vs. Union of India [2009 (13) STR 235 (Bomb) / 2010 (17) STR 557 (SC)]. The period involved in this case is prior to 18.04.2006. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from no infirmity and accordingly the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

SSK

-3-