Ispat Industries Ltd vs Cce Raigad

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. II

APPEAL NO. ST/150/09  Mum

Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. AII/151/RGD/2009 dated 31.3.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), 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 : 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?

Ispat Industries Ltd. : Appellant

Versus

CCE Raigad

Respondent

Appearance

Shri Shiven Khanna, Advocate for appellant Shri B. Kumar Iyer, Supdt (A.R.) For Respondent

CORAM:

Shri. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Shri. P.R. Chandrasekharan, Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing : 14.01.2015 Date of Decision : 14.01.2015

ORDER NO.

Per : M.V. Ravindran

This appeal is directed against Order-in-Appeal No. AII/151/RGD/2009 dated 31.3.2009.

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 service tax liability on the appellant under reverse charge mechanism for the period March 1999 to March 2003. The appellant availed services of overseas consultants when they put up a steel plant at Raigad and paid consulting charges who are situated in abroad and has no office in India.

4. We find that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgement of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association  2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.) and upheld by the Honble Apex Court. The said judgement categorically based on law which says that no service tax is payable by the recipient of the service if the said services are rendered prior to 18.04.2006 when the provisions to Section 66A were introduced in statute.

5. In view of the law as has been decided by the Honble Apex Court, we hold the impugned order is liable to be set aside and we do so. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. (Dictated in open Court)

(P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical)

(M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) nsk

??

??

??

??

2