9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 373X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovindarajan, AC (AR) For the Respondent ORDER The appellants are manufactures of Automotive Interiors. On scrutiny of records, it was noticed that appellants had paid Engineering fees / Royalty / Technical Consultancy fees to M/s.Hanil-E-HWA-Korea. Appellants paid an amount of Rs. 36,22,550/- as being towards service tax liability on reverse charge basis. It however appeared that the appellant h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 08.2009 upheld the order of original authority. Hence this appeal. 2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of appellant, Ld. Counsel Ms.Swetha Giridhar makes oral and written submissions which can be broadly summarized as under : i) Service tax is not liable to be paid for import of services until enactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act w.e.f. 18.4.2006. Hence credit of ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n disputed by the department on the ground that service tax was paid by them net of TDS instead of paying the same inclusive of TDS. SCN No.72/2007 was issued to them on 24.4.2007. Hence the extended period of limitation also could not have been invoked by the department in the present case based on the same amount involved. On the other hand, SCN dt. 24.4.2007 was issued in respect of the same is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d any ingredients which can justify the invocation of extended period of limitation in this case for which reason we hold that proceedings are ab initio hit by limitation. The impugned order cannot then sustain and will require to be set aside, which we hereby do. Appeal is allowed on limitation with consequential relief, if any, as per law.
(dictated and pronounced in court) X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
