TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (11) TMI 464
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... appellants, known as M/s. CGG Marine, a Company incorporated in France, with representative office in Mumbai entered into two contracts with ONGC for seismic surveys for Oil and Gas Natural in blocks/sites awarded by Government of India in the Eastern and Krishna Godaveri basin Areas Offshore India. The appellants were of the view that they are not liable to pay service tax but were asked to pay Rs. 7,44,40,257/- which they paid under TR 6 Challans marked "under protest" for the period 1.4.2006 to 18.4.2006. The appellant's claim was that service tax was not payable because the sites where survey was done were not in the designated areas of the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of India specified in Notification No. 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Thacker took us through the various relevant provisions of 'Territorial Waters, Continental Shelf, Exclusive Economic Zone and Other Maritime Zones Act, 1976' and the provisions of Service Tax Act. He stated that under the Maritime Zones Act, the Sovereignty of India extends over the Territorial Waters upto 12 nautical miles from the coastline. Further, in respect of the continental shelf and EEZ upto distance of 200 nautical miles, India has limited sovereign rights for exploitation of resources. The Service Tax Act extends to the whole of India. As per Circular 36/4/2001 dt. 8.10.2001, the service tax levy was extended only to designated areas in the continental shelf and EEZ under notification No. 1/2002-ST. The designated areas ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....imit of 12 Nautical Miles. However he vehemently argued that the Supreme Court decision in the case of Indian Tobacco Association (supra) laid down the law that substitution of a phrase in a notification would have retrospective effect. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. 7. We note that there is no dispute in the facts. It remains beyond doubt, as explicitly explained by the Ld. Counsel, that the service tax levy during the period 2006 was operative only in the designated areas i.e. areas designated by notifications issued by Ministry of External Affairs and made applicable for levy of service tax under Service Tax notification No. 1/2002-ST dt. 1.3.2002. The survey sites where the appellants conducted their op....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... same was meant to be extended to them also. For such purposes the statute need not be given retrospective effect by express words but the intent and object of the legislature in relation thereto can be culled out from the background facts. It is clear from the judgement that it would apply to cases where the effect of a beneficial statute is sought to be extended. In the present case we have a reverse position where the effect of the amended notification if read retrospectively will have the effect of punishment. We therefore do not agree with the order of Commissioner (Appeals), who has not read the judgement in its proper perspective. 9. We note that the Commissioner did not consider the service as import of service. However, for the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e the territorial waters with reference to the notification issued by Ministry of External Affairs. It is for the department to prove otherwise which they have not even attempted to do so because they have all along been trying to prove that notification No. 21/2009 has retrospective application. In fact, the entire reasoning in the Commissioner's order pertains to the provisions of service in the Continental Shelf and EEZ. 10. The Commissioner has brushed away the appellant's contention that duty was paid under protest and that the words 'under protest' were clearly marked on the TR 6 Challans. The refund has been sought under the provisions of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act as made applicable to service tax by Sect....