Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chennai vs M/S. Thyssen Krupp Jbm Pvt. Ltd on 26 July, 2011
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
Appeal No. S/1/2005
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 122/2004 (M-III) (ST) dated 28.9.2004 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President
Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, 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 the Members wish to see the fair copy of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental authorities?
CCE, Chennai Appellant
Vs.
M/s. Thyssen Krupp JBM Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance Shri A.B. Niranjan Babu, SDR, for the Appellant Shri Hari Radhakrishnan, Advocate for the Respondents CORAM Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Honble Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 26.07.2011 Date of Decision: 26.07.2011 Final Order No. ____________ Per Jyoti Balasundaram Demand of Rs.11,80,003/- was raised on the assessees herein on the ground they have received technical assistance and engineering services from M/s. Krupp Campfort Ltd. UK, which services fall within the category of consulting engineering in terms of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. Interest was also proposed to be levied and penalty proposed to be imposed. The period in dispute ranged from January 2001 to December 2002. The demand was confirmed by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise who also charged interest and imposed penalties; the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order both on merit as well as on limitation; hence this appeal by the Revenue.
2. On hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute regarding levy of service tax for the period in dispute stands settled against the Revenue by the Apex Courts decision in Union of India Vs. Indian National Shipowners Association 2010 (17) STR J57 (SC) holding that liability to service tax upon a service receiver arose only if the services were provided outside India post-18.4.2006, when Section 66A was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994. The period in dispute in the present case being prior to the above mentioned date, no liability to tax arises and we therefore uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy) (Jyoti Balasundaram)
Technical Member Vice President
Rex
??
??
??
??
3