9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the impugned order for setting aside the penalties imposed on them. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant is manufacturer of Helmet Parts and also exporter of Buckles. They availed services of a Foreign Service provider for marketing of their product as well as drawing and designing of their product. To avail these services appellant has paid commission or service charges to their agent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Further, he reduced the penalty under section 77 to Rs. 4000/- and he affirmed the penalty imposed on the appellant under section 78 of the Act. Aggrieved from the said order appellant is before me. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that during the said period there was a dispute whether under the Reverse Charge Mechanism, service tax is payable or not and same has been settled by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (31) STR 279 (P&H), Sun City Synthetics Vs. C.C.E. Surat-2012 (27) STR 314 (Gujarat). 4. On the other hand Ld. AR supported the impugned order and submits that it is held by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay that after 18.04.2006 Service Tax is payable under Reverse Charge Mechanism and the said benefit has been given to the appellant by the lower authorities. When there is a clear cut amendme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der section 80 of the Act. Therefore, issue before me is that in the facts and circumstances of the case where the appellant is entitled for the benefit of the section 80 of the Finance Act or not. 7. Admittedly the situation was clear w.e.f. 18.04.2006 that under Reverse Charge Mechanism the services receiver located in India who has received the services from the service provider located outsid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
