Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S Nahar Exports Ltd on 15 March, 2012
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
Court No.III
ST/Appeal Nos.666/08
(Arising out of order in appeal No.94/CE/CHD/08 dated 10.9.08 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh)
Date of Hearing: 15.3.2012
For Approval and signature:
Honble Mrs. Archana Wadhwa, Member Judicial
Honble Mr. Mathew John, 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 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?
CCE, Chandigarh Appellants
Vs
M/s Nahar Exports Ltd Respondent
ST/Appeal Nos.667/08
CCE, Chandigarh Appellants
Vs
M/s Cheema Spintex Ltd Respondent
ST/Appeal Nos.717/08
CCE, Chandigarh Appellants
Vs
M/s Malwa Industries Ltd Respondent
ST/Appeal Nos.724/08
CCE, Ludhiana Appellants
Vs
M/s Nahar Fibre Respondent
ST/Appeal Nos.725/08
CCE, Ludhiana Appellants
Vs
M/s Arihant Spinning Mills Respondent
ST/Appeal Nos.726/08
CCE, Ludhiana Appellants
Vs
M/s Arihant Spinning Mills Respondent
Appeared for the Appellant: Shri K.P. Singh, DR
Appeared for the Respondent: Shri Vikrant Kackaria, Advocate
Coram: Honble Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial)
Honble Mr. Mathew John, Member (Technical)
ORDER
Per Archana Wadhwa:
All the appeals filed by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as an identical issue is involved. The point required to be addressed is as to whether the respondents are liable to pay service tax in respect of commission paid to foreign based commission agents during the period before 18.4.2006 on reverse charge basis.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) by relying upon the decision in the case of Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd 2007 (7) STR 443 (Tri.) has allowed the appeals filed by the respondents. He has also relied upon the subsequent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner Vs Jindal & Power Ltd 2008 11 STR 14 (Tri-Del). It stands held in the said decisions that amendment carried out in Rule 2(1) (d) was not enough and sufficient, service recipient in India is liable to pay fare only when provision of section 66-A was inserted with effect from 18.4.2006.
3. We find that the issue is no more res-integra and stands settled by the Bombay High Court judgment in the case of Indian Shipowners Association 2009 (13) STR 235 Bom. The appeals filed by the Revenue before the Honble Supreme Court stands dismissed. The CBEC vide its subsequent instruction F.No.276/8/2009-CX,8A dated 26.9.2011 has observed that service tax liability in respect of taxable service provided by an non-resident or a person located outside India, to a recipient in India would arise w.e.f. 18.4.2006 i.e. the date of enactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1944. As the issue is covered, we find no merit in the Revenues appeals. The same are accordingly rejected.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court.) (ARCHANA WADHWA) Judicial Member (MATHEW JOHN) Technical Member MPS* 3