Tribunal rules in favor of Terex Equipments: Royalty payments exempt from service tax pre-10-5-2008 The Tribunal allowed the appeal by M/s. Terex Equipments P. Ltd., setting aside the demand for service tax on royalty payments made to associates before ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Tribunal rules in favor of Terex Equipments: Royalty payments exempt from service tax pre-10-5-2008
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by M/s. Terex Equipments P. Ltd., setting aside the demand for service tax on royalty payments made to associates before 10-5-2008. The Tribunal held that the retrospective effect of the amendment in the Service Tax Rules did not apply, and the extended period of limitation was not applicable. Additionally, the Tribunal found that service tax was not demandable based on book entries made before the relevant amendment. The impugned order was set aside, and consequential benefits were granted to the appellant.
Issues: Interpretation of retrospective effect of amendment in Service Tax Rules, applicability of extended period of limitation, demand of service tax prior to 10-5-2008 based on book entries.
In this case, the appellant, M/s. Terex Equipments P. Ltd., appealed against Order-in-Original No. 57/Commisioner/Noida/2012-13, challenging the demand of service tax on royalty payments made to associates. The Revenue alleged that service tax was payable even before 10-5-2008, based on the retrospective effect of an amendment in the Service Tax Rules. The Tribunal analyzed the amendment in Notification No. 19/2008-S.T., dated 10-5-2008, which stated that the amendment would have retrospective effect. The Tribunal found the issue to be interpretational and agreed with the Commissioner that the extended period of limitation was not applicable in this case. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and granting consequential benefits to the appellant. Regarding the merits, the Tribunal held that prior to 10-5-2008, service tax was not demandable under Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, based on book entries made for Cenvat credit before the insertion of an explanation in Rule 6 on 10-5-2008. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the demand for service tax was also invalid on merits. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Tribunal members Shri Anil Choudhary and Anil G. Shakkarwar.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
