2019 (3) TMI 1378

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ton yarn is not an agricultural produce falling within the exemption notification. The argument that the appellants are not liable to pay service tax under Notification No. 13/2003-S.T., dated 26-6-2003 therefore cannot sustain - demand upheld. Penalty - Held that:- The issue whether the assessee was liable to pay service tax under reverse charge mechanism was under litigation for a long time .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sing to demand the service tax to the tune of ₹ 2,11,845/- along with interest and penalties. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand, interest and imposed penalties. In appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the demand hit by limitation and also the penalty imposed under Section 78. Aggrieved by the confirmation of demand for the normal period and the pen .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... liable to pay the service tax under reverse charge mechanism was under litigation and later came to be settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Indian National Ship Owners' Association. 3. The Learned Authorised Representative Shri S. Govindaraj supported the findings in the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. On perusal of records and hearing t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X