9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (1) TMI 193 - AT - Service TaxNon discharge of Service Tax liability - recipient of services from a person situated abroad - seeking waiver of pre-deposit along with interest and penalties u/s 76 & 78 - Held that - The issue is no more res-integra as decided in Indian National Shipowners Association 2010 (12) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA subsequently followed in CCE Vs Bhandari Hosiery Exports 2010 (10) TMI 907 - SUPREME COURT . Even the CBE&C vide Circular F.No.276/8/2009-CX8A, dt.26.09.2011, has reiterated and accepted the said judgments of Apex Court.
Issues:
1. Stay petition for waiver of pre-deposit of Service Tax liability. 2. Confirmation of Service Tax liability by adjudicating authority. 3. Liability of recipient of services from a person situated abroad. 4. Settlement of issue by judgment of Apex Court. 5. Circular by CBE&C accepting judgments of Apex Court. Analysis: The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD pertains to a Stay Petition filed for the waiver of pre-deposit of an amount of Rs.64,839/- as Service Tax liability, including interest and penalties under Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority had confirmed the said amounts, citing non-discharge of Service Tax liability by the appellant as a recipient of services from a person situated abroad. Upon hearing arguments from both sides, the Tribunal noted that the issue at hand was no longer res-integra. The Tribunal allowed the application for waiver of pre-deposit and proceeded to take up the appeal itself for disposal. It was acknowledged by both parties that the Service Tax liability had been imposed on the recipient of services from a person situated abroad for the period before 18.04.2006. This issue had been settled by a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association, which was subsequently upheld by the Apex Court through the dismissal of an SLP. Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted that the judgment of the Apex Court had been followed in various other cases, as listed in the judgment. The Tribunal also noted that the Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBE&C) had reiterated and accepted the judgments of the Apex Court through a circular. Consequently, the Tribunal found the impugned order to be set aside, thereby allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, considering the settled legal position established by the Apex Court and the subsequent acceptance of such judgments by the CBE&C through a circular.
|
