2009 (5) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e High Court found that the authority for levy of service tax from recipient in India in respect of taxable services received from abroad was vested in the Central Government for the first time on 18-4-2006 under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the pre-existing rule which authorized the Government to levy service tax in the said manner was struck down - the authority to levy service tax from an Indian recipient of taxable service from abroad was conferred for the first time on the Central Government, without retrospective effect, under section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 on 18-4-2006.
P.G. CHACKO, JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajeev Waghle for the Appellant. K. Lal for the Respondent. ORDER 1. In adjudication of a show-cause not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dia in respect of services received from outside India. The learned Counsel has also relied on certain decisions of the Tribunal to the effect that there could be no penalty on an assessee who paid duty voluntarily prior to issue of show-cause notice. 3. The learned S.D.R. submits that the appellant never disowned tax liability and, in fact, paid the tax with interest voluntarily. Even in the present appeal, the tax liability has been virtually conceded. On these facts it is liable to be held that the appellant is liable to pay mandatory penalty. In this connection, S.D.R. has referred to CCE v. Science Center [Final Order No. 1582/2007-SM (BR), dated 24-10-2007], wherein, notwithstanding payment of tax by the assessee prior to issue of sh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tellectual property service from abroad prior to 18-4-2006. The period of dispute in the present case is prior to this date. Therefore, it has been argued that the very levy is unconstitutional and invalid and, for that matter, any proposal to levy penalty is illegal. Nevertheless, tax was paid by the party. What is relevant to the instant issue is not whether the tax was paid but whether it was payable. The service tax which was paid by the party was not payable in law. Each of the penalties under consideration is one leviable from a person who is liable to pay tax vide sections 76, 77 and 78. The appellant was not liable to pay tax during the period of dispute in respect of any taxable service received from abroad. It would follow that he .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X