Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S.Skm Egg Products (Export (India) ... vs Commissioner Of Central Excise ... on 22 January, 2010
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
S/158/2007 By Assessee
S/170/2007 By Department
and S/CO/11/2008 By Assessee
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.36/2007-ST (SLM) dated 30.04.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem]
M/s.SKM Egg Products (Export (India) Ltd.
Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Central Excise (Service Tax), Salem
Respondent
For approval and signature:
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice-President
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? :
Appearance :
Shri M. Saravanan, Cons.
Shri C. Dhanasekaran, SDR For the Assessee For the Department CORAM:
Honble Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 22.01.2010 Date of decision : 22.01.2010 Final Order No.____________ In this case, the adjudicating authority confirmed demand of service tax for the period from 16.06.2005 the show-cause notice proposed demand right from 01.01.2005 onwards. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order. The assessee is in appeal against the confirmation of liability and penalty. The Revenue is in appeal against the impugned order on the ground that the liability arises right from 01.01.2005 itself.
2. I have heard both sides and find that import of services has been held leviable to tax only with effect from 18.04.2006 with the introduction of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 by Honble Bombay High Court in Indian National Shipowners Association Vs Union of India [2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.)]. The above order has been upheld by the apex court as seen from 2009-TIOL-129-SC-ST.
3. Following the ratio of the above, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal of the assessees. The appeal of the Revenue is rejected in the light of the apex court decision.
4. Cross objection filed by the assessees in the departments appeal is dismissed as it only in the nature of reply to/comments upon the Revenues appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 22-01-2010 ??
??
??
??
1 2