TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (1) TMI 1066
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ax on certain payments made by the appellant to M/s. British Gas plc, UK, during the above period. Obviously, the show-cause notice invoked the extended period of limitation under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 for recovery of the tax. The appellant, viz. M/s. Mahanagar Gas Ltd. (MGL, for short) is a joint venture company consisting of M/s. British Gas, M/s. Gas Authority of India Ltd. and the Government of Maharashtra. Under an agreement dated 22-8-2000 (secondment agreement) between M/s. British Gas and MGL, the former was required to provide the services of a technical expert to the latter and accordingly the technical director on the board of directors of the JV company was an expert deputed by M/s. British Gas. According to the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al and held that the statutory effect created by the provisions of Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 and the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 could not be reduced or nullified by the insertion of Section 66A in the Finance Act. Hence the present appeal and the stay application. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that, even if it be assumed that a taxable service was provided by M/s. British Gas to MGL, any amount of service tax could not be demanded from MGL for the period of dispute inasmuch as this period is prior to 18-4-2006, the date on which Section 66A was inserted. It is submitted that an Indian recipient of a taxable service provided by a non-resident person having no offi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CCE, Thiruvananthapuram, 2008 (9) S.T.R. 3 (S.C.); (ii) Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur, 2008 (11) S.T.R. 338 (Tri.-LB); (iii) UOI v. Aditya Cement, 2008 (10) S.T.R. 228 (Raj.), and a few other decisions of the Tribunal. It is submitted that the civil appeal filed against the Tribunal's judgment in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. was dismissed by the Apex Court and, therefore, the view taken by the Tribunal's Larger Bench in the said case should be followed as binding precedent. The learned JCDR submits that, in any case, it should be held, by following the Larger Bench decision, that the appellant is liable to pay service tax for the period from 1-1-2005 to 31-3-2006. 4. In his rejoinder, the lear....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. and has submitted that the view taken by the Larger Bench stands affirmed by the Apex Court. On a perusal of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court in Indian National Ship Owners Association case, we find that the issue considered therein was whether a taxable service received by the vessels and ships owned by the Association outside India was chargeable to service tax in the hands of the ship owners. The Hon'ble High Court held thus : "Before enactment of Section 66A it is apparent that there was no authority vested by law in the Respondents to levy service tax on a person who is resident in India, but who receives services outside India. In that case, till Section 66A was enacted,, a person liable was the one w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of a taxable service provided by a non-resident having no office in India. This view of the Larger Bench came to be affirmed by the Apex Court vide CCE v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd., 2009 (14) S.T.R. J125 (S.C.). It is also pertinent to note that the Larger Bench decision in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. was upheld by the Supreme Court on 23-1-2009, much after the High Court rendered its judgment in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association. 6. We have also examined the relevant provisions of law. Apparently, the statute recognised a service recipient to be a person liable to pay service tax in respect of a taxable service provided by a non-resident having no office in India, only on 18-4-2006 with the enactment of Section 66A o....