9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s. Bharat Seats Ltd. is only a recipient of the services and in that the period involved is prior to 18.4.2006, no tax liability would arise against M/s. Houwa Kogyo Co. Ltd. Japan. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief - Service Tax Appeal No. 793 of 2009 - Final Order No . 51212 /2016 - Dated:- 31-3-2016 - MS ARCHANA WADHWA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. B RAVICHANDRAN, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Shri B L Narasimhan, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Sanjay Jain, DR ORDER PER MS. ARCHANA WADHWA : The present appeal stand filed by M/s. Houwa Kogyo Co. Ltd. Japan through M/s. Bharat Seats Ltd., Gurgaon against the order passed by lower authorities confirming the service tax to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period the same was applicable to firms which has been held interpreted to be partnership firm by the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CCE ST vs Simplex Infrastructure Foundry Works [2014 (34) STR 191 Delhi]. It further stand argued that even the provisions to pay Service tax on reverse charge basis were introduced with effect from 18.4.2002 which were applicable from 18.4.06 as per Hon ble High Court of Bombay in Indian National Shipowners Associatio vs. UOI [2009 (13) STR 235] . As such, the prayer is to set aside the impugned order on all the above three grounds. 5. After hearing the learned DR appearing for the Revenue, we find that there is no dispute on the facts that the service provider is located in Japan and has no o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agreement with M/s. NEI Ltd., Jaipur against payment of royalty. The service tax is sought to be recovered on the amount of royalty received by the respondent from M/s. NEI during the period 2003-04. First of all, in our view, the service provided by the respondent to M/s. NEI is not the service of Consulting Engineer but is Intellectual Property service, which became taxable w.e.f. 10-9-2004 under Section 65(105)(zzr) and, therefore, during the period of dispute, the service provided by the respondent would not attract any service tax. In this regard, we find support from the Tribunal s judgment in the cases of Novinon Ltd. v. CCE - 2004 (172) E.L.T. 400 (Tribunal-Mum.), Biocon Ltd. v. CST, Bangalore reported in 2007 (7) S.T.R. 214 (Tri.-B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ishment in India. In view of this, we find no illegality or impropriety in the impugned order. The Revenue s appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 6. In view of the clear facts of the present case, and in the absence of any dispute of factual position that M/s. Houwa Kogyo Co. Ltd. is a foreign company located in Japan having no office or any establishment in India and in view of the clear fact that M/s. Bharat Seats Ltd. is only a recipient of the services and in view of the fact that the period involved is prior to 18.4.2006, we are of the view that no tax liability would arise against M/s. Houwa Kogyo Co. Ltd. Japan. On this limited ground itself, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, appeal is allowed with consequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
