w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Palm Fibre (India) Ltd. v/s The Commissioner of Central Excise Cochin


Company & Directors' Information:- S S S FIBRE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17110PB2005PLC027818

Company & Directors' Information:- PALM FIBRE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U17214KL1983PTC003752

Company & Directors' Information:- THE INDIA COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U74999TN1919PTC000911

Company & Directors' Information:- G L FIBRE PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U17112PB2010PTC033873

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U65990MH1941PTC003461

Company & Directors' Information:- INDIA FIBRE PVT LTD [Active] CIN = U17232WB1968PTC027401

Company & Directors' Information:- COCHIN PALM PRIVATE LIMITED [Not available for efiling] CIN = U15400KL1965PTC002102

    Application No. ST/St/1538/2011, Appeal No. ST/2498/2011(Arising out of Order-in-Revision No. 11/2011-ST dated 27.06.2011 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Cochin)

    Decided On, 02 December 2011

    At, Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal South Zonal Bench At Bangalore

    By, HONOURABLE MR. M. VEERAIYAN
    By, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

    For the Appellant : K.K. G. Nair, Consultant. For the Respondent : M. Ravi Rajendran, JDR, for the Revenue.



Judgment Text

Heard both sides on the stay petition for a while. Considering the nature of issue, I deem it appropriate to waive pre-deposit of the dues as per the impugned order and proceed to dispose of the appeal finally.

2. Original authority vide order dated 30.06.2009 dropped the proposal for demand of service tax for the period prior to 18.04.2006 on the ground that the liability of the recipient of services from a foreign based service provider who does not have an office in India arises only w.e.f. 18.04.2006 when Section 66A was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994. Commissioner took up the order for revision under Section 84 of the Finance Act and consequently confirmed demand of Rs. 1,00,479/- relating to the period 01.01.2005 to 17.04.2006 along with interest and imposed equal amount of penalty under Section 78. In addition he also imposed a penalty under Section 76.

3. Learned consultant submits that Commissioner erred in disregarding the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235. He further submits that the Board in their subsequent circular F. No. 276/8/2009-CX8A dated 26.09.2011 has clarified that in view of the dismissal of SLP filed by the department in a number of cases, the service tax liability on any taxable service provided by a non resident person located outside India to a recipient in India would arise w.e.f. 18.04.2006 only.

4. Learned DRseeks decision on merits.

5.1 I have carefully considered the submissions from both sides and perused the records. The order of the Commissioner revising the order of the original authority to demand service tax for the period prior to 17.04.2006 on the recipient of the services in India in the facts and circumstances are not justified in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India as conveyed by the Board to the field formations vide Circular dated 26.09.2011.
<

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

br />5.2. Therefore, the order of the Commissioner is set aside and order of the original authority in this regard is restored. 6. Appeal is allowed with consequential relief as per law. Stay petition is also disposed of.
O R