Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Sunil Healthcare vs Cce, Jaipur-I on 14 July, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Principal Bench, New Delhi COURT NO. III Service Tax Appeal No. 763 of 2007 (DB) (Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.179/RKS/ST/JPR-I/07, dated 12.10.07 passed by the CCE, Jaipur) For approval and signature of: SHRI S. S. KANG, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT SHRI MATHEW JOHN, HONBLE TECHNICAL MEMBER ===========================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :
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 :
of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental :
Authorities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunil Healthcare Appellant Versus CCE, Jaipur-I Respondent Appearance Ms. Sukriti Das, Advocate - for the appellant.
Shri K.K.Jaiswal, SDR for the respondent.
CORAM : Honble Shri S.S.Kang, Vice-President Honble Shri Mathew John, Member(Technical) DATE OF HEARING / DEICISION : 14/07/2011.
Order No. ________________ Dated : _____________ Per S.S.Kang:
Heard both sides. Appellant filed this appeal against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals). The issue involved in this appeal is that whether the recipient of service provided by the foreign service provider is liable to pay service prior to 18.04.06. In the present case during the period October, 2004 to March, 2006, appellant received services provided by the foreign service provider. There is no dispute in respect of this factual position. This issue is now settled by the Honble Bombay High Court in the case Indian National Shipowners Association vs. Union of India reported in 2009(13)STR235(Bom.). Honble High Court held that the service receipt is not liable for service tax prior to 18/4/2006 in respect of the service received from Foreign Service Provider. The view taken by Honble Bombay High Court is affirmed by Honble Supreme Court reported in 2010(17)STRJ57(SC).
2. In view of the above settled legal position as the services are received by the appellant prior to 18th April, 2006 hence impugned order is set aside. Appeal is allowed. (Order dictated in the open court.) (S.S.Kang) Vice President) (Mathew John) Member(Technical) RK-I