Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs M/S.Malladi Drugs And Pharmaceuticals ... on 7 August, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
S/136/2007 and ST/CO/31/2007
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.39/2007 (M III) (ST) dated 29.03.2007passed by the Commissioner of, ]
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 Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai
Appellant
Versus
M/s.Malladi Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Respondents
Appearance :
Shri V.V. Hariharan, JCDR Shri R. Janardhanan Pillai, Cons. For the Appellant For the Respondents CORAM:
Honble Ms.Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice-President Date of hearing : 07.08.2009 Date of decision : 07.08.2009 Final Order No.____________ The issue in dispute, namely, as to whether the recipient of service by a foreign service provider is liable to pay service tax prior to 01.01.2005 (the period in dispute in the present case is 01.05.2003 to 31.12.2004) stands settled against the Revenue by the decisions of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [2008 (11) S.T.R. 338 (Tri.-LB)] holding that the recipient of service provider from outside India is liable to pay service tax only from 01.01.2005 onwards which has been upheld by the apex court as seen from the submission made by the Counsel for the Revenue in Unitech Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [2009TIOL293 HCDEL-ST].
2. Following the ratio of the above, I hold that there is no warrant to interfere with the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly uphold the same and reject the appeal.
3. The cross objection is dismissed as withdrawn. (Dictated and pronounced in open court) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM) VICE-PRESIDENT ksr 13-08-2009 ??
??
??
??
1 4