Commissioner, Central Excise & Service ... vs M/S The Paper Products Ltd

Appeal No.ST/133/2008-DB; ST/CROSS/53/2008 [Arising out of OIA No.KRS/123/VAPI/2008, dt.30.04.2008, passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi]

Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Vapi Appellant

Vs

M/s The Paper Products Ltd Respondent

Represented by:

For Appellant: Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative For Respondent: Shri Rahul Gajera, Advocate

For approval and signature:

Honble Mr. P.K. Das, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.M. Saleem, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see the No Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of Seen the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?

CORAM:

HONBLE MR. P.K. DAS, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HONBLE MR. P.M. SALEEM, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 14.09.2015

Order No. A/11322 / 2015, dt.14.09.2015

Per: P.K. Das

Revenue filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals).

2. The Respondents were engaged in the manufacture of Plastics Laminated Flexible Packing Material of Polyester, BOPP, P.V.C. and paper, classifiable under Chapter 39 and 48 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The Respondent paid the amount to foreign firm in the year 2002, for rendering service, who has no office in India. The service tax was demanded under the category of Consulting Engineering Service. The Adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.78,714.00 alongwith interest and imposed penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Adjudication order on the ground the services rendered by the foreign firm is not covered under the definition of Consulting Engineers service.

3. We find that the impugned order may be upheld on different ground. It is seen that the Respondent paid the amount for rendering service to the foreign firm. CBEC vide Circular F.No.276/8/2009-CX 8A, dt.26.09.2011, after following the decision of Honble Supreme Court, 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. 18.04.2006, i.e. the date of enactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994.

4. In view of the above, we do not find any reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. The cross objection is disposed of.

(Dictated & Pronounced in Court)

(P.M. Saleem) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)

cbb 3