9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 479X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and further affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court by dismissing the appeal of the department in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS INDIAN NATIONAL SHIPOWNERS ASSOCIATION [ 2009 (12) TMI 850 - SC ORDER] . Therefore, in view of the settled position, the demand of service tax on the services received from abroad prior to 18.04.2006 is set aside. The demand of service tax on business exhibition service which falls under Section 65(105)(zzo) as it existed then was under second category of the Rule 3 of the Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006. As per the said rule, the service tax can be demanded only when the services are wholly performed in India or partly performed in India, whereas in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, 1994 read with Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. On these allegations, a show cause notice dated 16.10.2008 was issued to the appellant and the appellant filed detailed reply to the show cause notice. After following the due process, the Additional Commissioner confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.5,02,562/- under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest; penalty of Rs.1,000/- under Section 77 and equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 were also imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide the impugned order rejected the same. Hence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 3. Heard both the parties and perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act, 1994 and Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 cannot be framed as not to carry the purpose of Chapter V. 4.4 Further, he places reliance on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner vs. Unitech Ltd 2011 (24) STR J135 (SC), wherein the Hon ble Apex Court had dismissed the appeal filed by the department and upheld the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court. 4.5 He further submits that after relying upon the decision of Hon ble Apex Court, Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in the case of DSM Sinochem Pharmaceuticals India Pvt Ltd vs. C.C.E, Chandigarh 2016-TIOL-2789-CESTAT-CHD, wherein it was held that regarding appellant s liability to service tax on reverse charge basis, when the services are prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the issue involved in the present case is no more res integra and has been settled by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association (supra) and further affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court by dismissing the appeal of the department. Therefore, in view of the settled position, we hold that demand of service tax on the services received from abroad prior to 18.04.2006 is set aside. 7. Further, we find that the demand of service tax on business exhibition service which falls under Section 65(105)(zzo) as it existed then was under second category of the Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
