Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal14 January 2015

CitationAPPEAL NO. ST/CO/10/11 Mum

Ratio decidendi

The rule this decision rests on

The Tribunal's decision rests on the principle that where both parties accept that the case is squarely covered by a decision of the High Court which has been upheld by the Supreme Court, the impugned order fastening service tax liability under the reverse charge mechanism on payments to foreign technical consultants cannot stand and is set aside, the appeal being allowed on that basis.

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

APPLICATION NO. ST/308/09 IN APPEAL NO. ST/CO/10/11 Mum

Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. SB(61)61/STC/2009 dated 30.09.2009 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax, 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?

Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. : Appellant

Versus

Commissioner of Service Tax Mumbai

Respondent

Appearance

Shri Saha Subroto, Representative for appellant Shri K.S. Mishra, 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-Appeal No. SB(61)61/STC/2009 dated 30.09.2009.

2. Heard both sides and perused the records.

3. On perusal of the records, we find that the service tax liability has been fastened on the appellant on the ground that they are liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism for the payments made by them to the foreign technical consultants during 2001-02.

4. Both sides are agree that the case is squarely covered by the decision of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India reported in 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.) and the same has been upheld by the Honble Apex Court. We find it so. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. Cross Objection filed by the Revenue is also disposed of. (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