Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal

M/S. Hindustan Motors Ltd vs Cce, Chennai on 5 August, 2013

        

 
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI

ST/67/2005

(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 15/2005 (M-ST) dated 29.4.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai)

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member
Honble Shri 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 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?

M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd.					Appellant

      
      Vs.


CCE, Chennai						        Respondent

Appearance Shri V. Balasubramaniam, Advocate, for the Appellants Shri P. Arul, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent CORAM Honble Shri P.K. Das, Judicial Member Honble Shri Mathew John, Technical Member Date of Hearing: 05.08.2013 Date of Decision: 05.08.2013 Final Order No. ____________ Per P.K. Das In this appeal, the service tax demand on the appellant is towards services received from Mitsubishi Motor Corporation, Japan is being contested. The period involved in this case is 2000  2001. It has been held by the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Associations  2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.) that prior to 18.4.2006, service tax could not be demanded from service recipient under the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, because the said rule is ultra vires under the provisions of the Act with envisaged levy of service tax on the provider of service tax. The decision of the Bombay High Court has been confirmed by the Honble Supreme Court as reported in 2010 (17) STR J57 (SC). This decision has also been accepted by the Board. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.

(Dictated and pronounced in open court)






   (Mathew John)		              		   (P.K. Das) 
Technical Member			     		Judicial Member 		

Rex