9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (11) TMI 67X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... slature intended imposition of tax on the services received by a recipient in India from outside India - Earlier to the enforcement of Section 66A there was no authority vested by law in the revenue to levy service tax on a person who is resident in India but who receive services from a person resident outside India. Till the time Section 66A was enacted only the person who rendered the service wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'). The revenue has claimed that the following substantive questions of law CEA No. 30 of 2009 would emerge from the order of the Tribunal and, thus, the same be adjudicated by this Court: (i) Whether the service tax was leviable on the recipient of service irrespective of Section 66-A of the Finance Act? ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er (Appeals) set aside the demand to the extent it was beyond the period of limitation and also set aside the penalty. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) has been upheld by the Tribunal on the basic premise that Section 66A of the Finance Act, 2006 (for brevity, 'Finance Act'), was enforced with effect from 18.4.2006, which covered the services rendered outside India for the purposes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on v. Union of India, 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.). Following the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India, 2006 (2) S.T.R. 276 (S.C.), the Division Bench of Bombay High Court held that the Finance Act, 1994 was for the first time amended on 18.4.2006 whereby the revenue acquired legal authority to levy service tax on the recipient of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Delhi High Court in the case of Unitech Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi, 2009 (15) S.T.R. 385 (Del.). We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid view expressed by the Bombay and Delhi High Court. In view of the above, these appeals fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE Pkapoor November 17, 2009 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
