9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (5) TMI 429X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt should be liable to pay service tax for the period from 01/01/2005 to 15/06/2005 as a recipient of such service, received from the parent company located abroad, under reverse charge mechanism. For demanding service tax amount, the impugned order has referred to Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) ibid. The issue in dispute came up for consideration before the Hon ble Bombay High Court, in the case of INDIAN NATIONAL SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [ 2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] , wherein it was held that provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) ibid cannot create any tax liability which is not authorized by law and that before insertion of Section 66A with effect from 18/04/2006, there was no authority to levy service tax on import of ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder Nos. 21144-21147/2019 dated 27/11/2019 has allowed the appeals in favour of the appellants. On a query from the Bench, whether the present appeal can be disposed of today, the learned AR for Revenue has not objected to such query and conceded that the issue involved in this present case is squarely covered by the above judgments relied upon by the learned Advocate for the appellant. Accordingly, with the consent of both sides, the appeal is taken up for hearing today and the present order is being passed. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant herein is engaged in the business of providing Maintenance or Repair Service , defined under Section 65(64) of the Finance Act, 1994. On scrutiny of records obtained ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6/2005 along with interest. The impugned order has dropped the proposals made in the SCN for demand of service tax under the category of Management, Maintenance or Repair Service for the period from 01/07/2003 to 31/03/2007. The impugned order has also dropped the proposal for imposition of penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 ibid. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order dated 30/08/2010, the appellant has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that before insertion of Section 66A ibid (with effect from 18/04/2006), there was no authority to levy service tax on import of service and therefore, the present demands confirmed under the taxable category of BAS for the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion below Section 65(105) ibid did not give any authority to levy service tax on import of service. Against the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court (supra), the Union of India had filed the Special Leave Petition before the Hon ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon ble Court, as reported in [ 2009 (12) TMI 850 SC ]. Further, we also find that by placing reliance on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court (supra), this Tribunal vide Final Order Nos. 21144-21147/2019 dated 27/11/2019 had allowed the appeals in favour of the appellant for the period prior to 18/04/2006 i.e. the date of enactment of Section 66A in the Finance Act, 1994. 7. In view of the above settled position of law, we do not find any merits in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
