2013 (3) TMI 494 - AT - Service Tax

Import of Services from Dubai Not Taxable before 18/4/2006 - None present for the respondent. - The respondent has received services from Dubai during the period from 09.7.2004 to 31.1.2006 for which he asked to pay tax. The original authority confirmed demand of service tax along with interest and imposed penalty on respondent. Commissioner (Appeals) , set aside the order passed. Aggrieved by this order revenue file an appeal to Tribunal. Held that - Tribunal in the light of judgement passed by the tribunal in earlier case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur, 2008 (6) TMI 6 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) held that there is no liability to service tax on the recipient would be arise only with effect from 18.4.2006. Appeal is, therefore, rejected.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Tax liability on services received classified under "Business Auxiliary Service" from a Dubai based party.
3. Interpretation of relevant legal precedents - decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Tribunal's decision in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur.
4. Applicability of CBEC instructions regarding service tax liability on the recipient.
5. Final decision on the appeal filed by the department.

Analysis:
1. The Tribunal condoned the delay of 29 days in filing the appeal after considering the grounds disclosed by the appellant.

2. The appeal involved services received classified under "Business Auxiliary Service" from a Dubai based party. The original authority confirmed a demand for service tax, interest, and penalty on the assessee-respondent. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the original authority's order based on the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a specific case.

3. The department filed the appeal citing the Tribunal's decision in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur, to argue that service tax was leviable on the respondent from a specific date. The department also mentioned that the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the Indian National Ship Owners' Association case was under appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, CBEC instructions clarified the liability to service tax on the recipient, which was effective from a specified date.

4. Considering the CBEC instructions and the legal precedents, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal filed by the department and consequently rejected it.

5. The appeal was rejected, and the COD application was disposed of by the Tribunal in open court proceedings.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues addressed in the judgment, including the condonation of delay, tax liability on services received, interpretation of legal precedents, applicability of CBEC instructions, and the final decision on the appeal.