Cce, Ludhiana vs Ambica Overseas
- CitationAppeal No. ST/980-981/2009-Cus (DB)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The question of whether service tax was leviable on import of services before 18.4.2006, the date section 66A was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994, is treated as settled by the Supreme Court's decision in Indian National Shipowners Association, which holds that such tax is leviable only from 18.4.2006; the Tribunal applies that settled position to the disputed period of 2004 to 2007. Where the tax liability on import of services was genuinely uncertain at the relevant time, owing to confusion as to its leviability before the Supreme Court's later ruling, penalty may be waived under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA No.170/CE/LDH/09 dt.3.9.09 and OIA No.177/CE/LDH/09 dt.4.9.09 passed by CCE (Appeals), Chandigarh)
CCE, Ludhiana Appellants
Vs.
Ambica Overseas Respondent
Mayor & Company
Appearance:
Appellant: Shri Yash Pal Shrama, AR
Respondent: None
HonbleMr.P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)
HonbleMr.P.S.Pruthi, Member (Technical)
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? No
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
seen
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
Coram:Honble Mr.P.K.Das, Member (Judicial)
HonbleMr.P.S.Pruthi, Member(Technical)
Date of Hearing/decision: 21.01.2015
FINAL ORDER NO.50744-50745/2015
PER: P.S.PRUTHI
The Revenue is in appeals against the Order-in-Appeal in which the Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the penalty under section 76 & 77 imposed by the adjudicating authority and reduced the penalty under section 78 to the extent of liability of service tax payable from 18.4.2006 to 31.3.2007.
2. The facts of the case are that the respondent were paying overseas commission to foreign based commission agent for receiving service of procurement of orders. The adjudicating authority held that service tax is payable even for the period prior to 18.4.2006 when section 66A was introduced in the Finance Act. The adjudicating authority also imposed penalties under section 76,77 and 78 of the Finance Act. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) held as above.
4. Heard both sides and considered the submissions.
5. In this case, we find that the main issue is to be decided as applicability of service tax on import of service before 18.4.2006 when section 66A was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994. This issue is no longer res-integra and it stands settled by the Apex Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association holding that service tax on import of service is leviable only from 18.4.2006 when section 66A was introduced in the Finance Act. The judgement of the Supreme Court came in 2010 whereas the period of dispute in this case is 2004 to 2007. This being the situation, it is clear that there was confusion all around as to the leviability of service tax on import of service. Therefore it is a proper case to waive penalty in terms of section 80 of the Finance Act.
6. In the circumstances, the appeals of the Revenue are rejected to the extent penalty not already paid. The appeals are dismissed in the above terms.
(Pronounced in the court)
(P.S.PRUTHI) (P.K.DAS)
MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER(JUDICIAL)
mk
1
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