Maharashtra Seamless Ltd vs C.S.T., Raigad

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal14 January 2015

CitationAPPEAL NO. ST/313/09 Mum

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The tribunal's reasoning rests on a single principle: where the question of service tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism has already been settled by a binding higher-court decision, that settled law governs the dispute and is applied to the facts, so that the adjudicating authority's order dropping the proceedings is upheld and the appeal allowed.

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/313/09 Mum

Arising out of Order-in-Revision No. 03R/SR(03R)COMMR/RGD/09-10 dated 10.09.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Raigad)

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?

Maharashtra Seamless Ltd. : Appellant

Versus

C.S.T., Raigad

Respondent

Appearance

Ms. Padmavati Patil, Advocate for appellant Dr. B.S. Meena, Addl. Commissioner (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-Revision No. 03R/SR(03R)COMMR/RGD/09-10 dated 10.09.2009.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the adjudicating authority has dropped the proceedings initiated against the appellant for discharge of service tax liability on the amounts paid by them towards purchase of designs and drawings as per the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 which commonly known as reverse charge mechanism. The adjudicating authority held in favour of the appellant which was reviewed and the demands were confirmed along with interest and penalties.

4. We find that the issue is no more res integra as to discharge of service tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism has been settled by the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Associations v. Union of India reported in 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.) and the same view has been upheld by the Honble Apex Court in 2010 (17) STR J-57 which has been reproduced by the Board in CBEC Circular No.276/8/2009/CX 8A dated 26.9.2001. In the case in hand it is admitted that the issue of discharge of service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism for the services related to transfer of designs and drawings was in the month of September 2002. We hold that the ratio of the judgement in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association (supra) is squarely applies. We find that the order-in-original is sustainable and is liable to be upheld.

5. Appeal is allowed.

(Dictated in open Court)

(P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical)

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

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