Commissioner Of Central Excise & ... vs Reliance Industries Ltd
- CitationAPPEAL NO. ST/312/10 Mum
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Service tax under the reverse charge mechanism on commission paid to overseas commission agents for services rendered to the assessee is not leviable for any period before 18 April 2006, the date from which Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 took effect; the reverse charge liability for such period is therefore unsustainable, as the law settled by the High Court and affirmed by the Supreme Court in Indian National Shipowners' Association applies directly to a period prior to that date.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II
APPEAL NO. ST/312/10 Mum
Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. Commr.(A)/18/VDR-II/2010 dated 26.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, LTU, Mumbai.
For approval and signature:
Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities?
Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax Mumbai : Appellant
Versus
Reliance Industries Ltd.
Respondent
Appearance
Shri B. Kumar Iyer, Supdt (A.R.) for appellant Shri Vipin Kumar Jain, Advocate with Ms. Shilpa Balani, Advocate For Respondent
CORAM:
Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing : 11.03.2015 Date of Decision : 11.03.2015
ORDER NO.
Per : M.V. Ravindran This appeal is filed by the revenue against order-in-appeal number COMMR. (A)/18/VDR /2010 dated 17 March 2010.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of the records it transpires that the issue involved in this case is regarding the service tax liability on an amount paid as commission to the overseas commission agents for effecting the sale of the respondents goods. It is the case of the revenue that the respondent is liable to pay the service tax on the amount of commission paid under reverse charge mechanism as the services were rendered to the respondent. The period in involved in this case is from 09/07/2004 to 30/09/05. It is the case of the revenue that the tax liability arises by virtue of the provisions of service tax valuation rules.
4. In our considered view, the issue is no more res integra as High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National ship owners Association has laid down the law that service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism will be applicable only from 18/04/06 by insertion of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The said judgement has been upheld by the Honble Apex Court as reported at 2010 (17) STR J-57.
5. In view of the fact and the authoritative judicial pronouncements and the period involved in this case being prior to 18/04/06, the ratio of the Apex Courts judgement will apply directly in favour of assessee.
6. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order is correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity. The appeal being devoid of merits is rejected.
(Dictated in open Court)
(P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical)
(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) nsk
??
??
??
??
3
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