Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Samcor Glass Ltd vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 17 April, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
BENCH-DB
Service Tax Appeal No.ST/198/2009 [ST. DB]
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.37/2008 dated 17.12.2008 passed by the Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur-I]
For approval and signature:
Honble Mrs.Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see the No
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?
__________________________________________________
M/s.Samcor Glass Ltd. Appellant
Vs.
CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent
Present for the Appellant : Shri Narinder Singhvi, Advocate
Present for the Respondent: Shri Govind Dixit, DR
Coram:Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Member (Technical)
Date of Hearing/Decision: 17.04.2014
Final ORDER NO. 51837/2014 DATED: 17.04.2013
PER: ARCHANA WADHWA
The appeal stands filed by the appellant against the order of the Commissioner passed in review proceedings. Original demand was raised against the appellant alleging that they have received consulting engineering service from M/s. M/s.Samsung Corning Co. Ltd., Korea and they are liable to pay service tax on reverse charge basis. The proceedings initiated against them culminated into order passed by the original authority vide which he observed that the services received by the appellant were not consulting engineering services but the same were IPR services which were introduced w.e.f. 10.09.2004 and as such he confirmed the demand of duty of Rs.1,31,456/- only and dropped the balance amount of service tax.
2. The said order of Assistant Commissioner was appealed against by the assessee before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the same which order stands accepted by the assessee. On the other hand, the same order of the Assistant Commissioner was also reviewed by the Commissioner in terms of provisions of Section 84 of the Finance Act and the present impugned order stands passed by him confirming demand of Rs.33, 35,400/- on the ground that the services received by the appellant were Consulting Engineering services and not IPR services as held by the Assistant Commissioner.
3. Hence the present appeal.
4. Without going into the aspect as to whether the services received by the appellant were consulting engineering services or IPR services, we find that the service tax stands confirmed against appellant on reverse charge basis, for the period August 2002 to September, 2004, as recipient of the services from Korea. The Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Ship owners Association vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bombay) has held that service tax cannot be levied and collected from the recipient of the services on reverse charge basis for the period prior to 18.04.2006, when the provisions of section 66A were enacted. In the present case, the period involved is admittedly prior to 18.04.2006. As such, on this ground itself, we find that the impugned order of Commissioner is not sustainable. We, accordingly, set aside the same and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
5. However at this stage we make it clear that Commissioner vide his impugned order confirmed the entire demand proposed in the show cause notice inclusive of the demand which was confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. The said order of the Asst. Commissioner confirming a part of the demand to the tune of Rs.1,31,456/- was upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) and accepted by the assessee along with consequent penalties, interest etc., in as much as, no appeal was filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). As such, we make it clear the liabilities in terms of earlier order of Commissioner (Appeals) would stand against the appellant. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].
(RAKESH KUMAR) (ARCHANA WADHWA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Anita 3 3