M/S. Inductotherm India Pvt. Limited vs Commissioner Of Central Excise & S.T., ...

(Arising out of OIA-13/2008/STC/RAJU/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 31.01.2008, passed by Commissioner (Appeals) Central Excise & Service Tax, Ahmedabad)

M/s. Inductotherm India Pvt. Limited : Appellant (s)

VERSUS

Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Ahmedabad : Respondent (s)

Represented by :

For Appellant (s) : Shri Kuntal Parikh, Advocate

For Respondent (s) : Shri Alok Srivastava, Authorised Representative

For approval and signature :

Mr. P.K. Das, Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. P.M. Saleem, 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. P.M. Saleem, Hon'ble Member (Technical)

Date of Hearing / Decision : 16.07.2015

ORDER No. A/11031/2015 Dated 16.07.2015

Per : Mr. P.K. Das;

After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of Industrial or Electrical Induction Melting furnace of different capacity classifiable under Chapter 84 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They have received the services of Intellectual Property Service from M/s. Inductotherm Industries Inc., USA, a foreign party and paid them royalty. According to the Revenue, the Intellectual Property Services was brought into the service tax net with effect from 07.9.2004 and the appellant is liable to pay service tax as recipient in India.

2. We find that the issue is no more res-integra and settled by the decision in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association vs. UOI  2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.), which is upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in 2010 (17) STR J57 (S.C.). The learned advocate also relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax vs. Quintiles Data Processing Centre (I) Pvt. Limited  2011 (23) STR 15 (Guj.). It has been held that charging Section i.e. Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 is introduced with effect from 18.04.2006 in respect of the services received from the foreign. In the present case, the dispute relates to the period October 2004 to September 2005. Hence, the present case is covered by the decisions cited by the learned Advocate.

3. In view of the above discussions, we set-aside the impugned order. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the Court)

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

3