Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ... vs M/S. Bell Grantio Ceramics Limited
- CitationAppeal No. : ST/20/2008
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The liability to pay service tax on services received from a foreign provider under the reverse-charge mechanism, introduced by Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 18.4.2006, cannot be imposed in respect of a period before that date; a demand for service tax on services rendered by a foreign company for the period 2001-2003 is therefore unsustainable, and the Commissioner (Appeals) was right to set aside the adjudication order confirming it.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out of OIA-COMMR-A-/229/VDR-I/2007 dated 26.11.2007, Passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise, Service Tax & Customs, Vadodara)
Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vadodara : Appellant (s)
VERSUS
M/s. Bell Grantio Ceramics Limited : Respondent (s)
Represented by :
For Appellant (s) : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative For Respondent (s) : Shri Dhaval K. Shah, Advocate
For approval and signature :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon'ble 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 should be released under Rule 27 of 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?
Seen 4 Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
Yes
CORAM :
Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. H.K. Thakur, Hon'ble Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing/ Decision : 24.07.2015
ORDER No. A/11102/2015 Dated 24.07.2015
Per : Mr. P.K. Das;
The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) where the adjudication order was set-aside and the appeal filed by the Respondent was allowed.
2. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the demand of service tax was raised on the ground that the services were rendered by a foreign Company situated abroad. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax. Commissioner (Appeals) set-aside this impugned order. The period of dispute is 2001-2003. The Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Unimark Remedies Limited 2014 (34) STR 31 (Guj.) held that liability of service tax from the service recipient, provided by the foreign company utilising in India, was introduced by Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 18.4.2006.
3. In view of that, we do not find any reason to interfere the order of Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(H.K. Thakur) (P.K. Das) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) ..KL
2
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