9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 1034 - AT - Service TaxService tax liability - as recipient of service under Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - Consultancy Engineering Services, Technical Consultancy Services and Technical Test & Analysis Services - Held that - the entire amount had been received by the appellant prior to 18/4/2006 i.e. the date of enactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence, the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association Vs. Union of India 2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT against which the Department s SLP was dismissed by the Hon ble High Court reported as UOI & Others Vs. Indian National Ship Owners 2009 (12) TMI 850 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and the said principle of law has been accepted by the Board vide its instruction dated 26/9/2011. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
Issues:
Appeal against Service Tax demand on services received from foreign providers. Analysis: The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, regarding the appellant receiving services from foreign providers under various tax categories. The Commissioner held the appellant liable to pay Service tax as a recipient of services, confirming a demand of &8377; 68,15,200 and imposing penalties and interest. However, it was agreed by both sides that the entire amount was received before the enactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. This issue was settled by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in a previous case, which was upheld by the Supreme Court and accepted by the Board. As a result, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and allowed the appeal, setting aside the original decision and providing consequential relief as per the law. This judgment highlights the importance of the timing of the receipt of services in relation to the relevant legal provisions. The decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, affirmed by the Supreme Court and accepted by the Board, established a precedent that influenced the outcome of this case. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the legal framework and the applicability of the law at the time of the transactions in question, ultimately leading to the allowance of the appeal based on the established legal principles and precedents. The case underscores the significance of legal precedents and the adherence to established principles in tax matters. By referencing the decisions of higher courts and the instructions of the Board, the Tribunal ensured consistency and compliance with the law. The outcome of the appeal was determined by the application of these legal precedents, emphasizing the importance of legal interpretation and the impact of judicial decisions on similar cases. The judgment serves as a reminder of the need for legal clarity and consistency in tax-related disputes, providing guidance for future cases with similar circumstances.
|
