2013 (12) TMI 627

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 1. The respondent is a manufacturer of cotton made-ups for exports. For marketing their products abroad, they received services of agents located abroad and they paid for the services. Revenue demanded service tax on such services received from persons located abroad under provisions of section 66A of Finance Act, 1994. A demand for service tax not paid was adjudicated for the period 18-04-06 to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ax and since adjudicating authority confirmed the demand under proviso to section 73 (1) of Finance Act94, penalty under section 78 is maintainable. He relies on the decision of CCE Ludhiana Vs Silver Oak Gardens Resort - 2008 (9) STR 481 (Tri-Del.) and Dhandayuthapani Canteen Vs CCE Trichy - 2008 (12) STR 154 (Tri.-Chennai) and decision of Kerala High Court in ACCE Vs Krishna Poduwal - 2006 (1) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n activity which was carried out abroad and also he points out that if at all they had to pay service tax, they could have taken Cenvat credit of such amount and claimed refund under Rule 5 of Cenvat Credit Rules 2004. Thus the appellants have already suffered duty incidence which they need not have suffered. 4. Finally, clarity regarding the validity of section 66A of Finance Act,1994 came by th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X