Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cst, Delhi vs M/S Olympus India Pvt. Ltd on 9 June, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066. Date of Hearing/Order : 9.6.2016 Appeal No. ST/233/2010-CU(DB) with CO/84/2010 (Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 85/ST/DLH/2009 dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi) For Approval & Signature : Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, 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? 2. Whether it would 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 Department Authorities? CST, Delhi Appellant Vs. M/s Olympus India Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Ms. Neha Garg, D.R. - for the appellant Shri Ramesh Krishnan, Advocate - for the respondent CORAM: Honble Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical) Final Order No. 52575/2016 Per S.K. Mohanty:
Revenue has filed this appeal against the impugned order dated 28.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, New Delhi.
2. The issue involved in this appeal for consideration is as to whether the respondent in the capacity of recipient of service, is liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism for the services received from the overseas clients during the period from 2003-2004 to 2005-2006. Section 66A was inserted in the statute book by Finance Act, 2006 (21 of 2006), dated 18.4.2006. with effect from 1.5.2006, whereby the recipient of taxable service was made liable to pay service tax for the services received from outside India. It is an admitted fact that the disputed service in the present case were received by the appellant prior to 18.4.2006, when Section 66A was not incorporated in the Finance Act, 1994. Thus, in absence of any specific provision for payment of service tax by the receiver of service prior to 18.4.2006, in our considered opinion, liability cannot be fastened on the appellant for payment of service tax as a recipient of service.
3. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and dismiss the appeal filed by Revenue. Cross-objections are also disposed of.
(S.K. Mohanty) Member (Judicial) (R.K. Singh) Member (Technical) RM 1