9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 550X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of pre-deposit and stay recovery of the impugned adjudicated liability during pendency of the appeal - Stay granted. - Application No.ST/STAY/59792/2013-CU[DB], In Appeal No.ST/59112/2013-CU[DB] - - - Dated:- 12-5-2015 - G Raghuram, President And R K Singh, Member (T),JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Shashi Mathews, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Kishore Kunal, Adv ORDER Per: R K Singh: Stay Application along with Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Original dated 17.04.2013 in terms of which the service tax demand of ₹ 1,59,95,229/- was confirmed along with interest and penalties. The demand was confirmed under 'Consulting Engineer' service on the ground that the appellant had received the amount fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... outstanding as on 10.05.2008 but the same has been raised after 10.05.2008 and therefore it falls within the ambit of the amended Explanation and hence it is sustainable. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. We find that in the case of Gecas Services India Pvt Ltd. Vs. CST, New Delhi [2014 (36) STR 556 (Tri. - Del.)] , CESTAT has held that the amendment to the said Explanation is prospective in nature. It is also evident that the demand has been raised on the outstanding amount in respect of service from associate enterprises received before 10.05.2005. It is nowhere brought out in the impugned order or in the Show Cause Notice that the outstanding amount as on 10.05.2008 has ever been paid by the appellant. CESTAT in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retrospective, when the effect of the explanation was widening the tax net. Since in this case, the debit entries, in question, had been made during period prior to 10-5-2008, the same by applying the above explanation, cannot be treated as payments made by the appellant to M/s. GECAS, Ireland and the appellant would be treated as having made payments to M/s. GECAS, Ireland only in August, 2009 when the payments had actually been made. Accordingly, the demand for the interest for alleged delay in discharging service tax liability by the due date is not sustainable. 5. Following the ratio of the judgement of CESTAT in the case of Gecas Services India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we waive the requirement of pre-deposit and stay recovery of the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
