TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (7) TMI 429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. The following appeals are disposed of: Sr. NO. Name of the appellant Appeal No. SCN dt. Period involved 1 Interjewel Pvt. Ltd. ST/88511/2014-MUM 20.9.2011 18.4.2006 To 14.5.2008 2 B. Vijay Kumar & Co. ST/89893/2014-MUM 20.9.2011 18.4.2006 To 31.3.2011 3 Vishinda Diamonds ST/89907/2014-MUM 19.9.2011 18.4.2010 To September 2010 4 Rosy Blue (I) Pvt. Ltd. ST/88970/2014-MUM 17.10.2011 & 20.9.2012 18.4.2006 To 31.3.2012 5 KGK Diamonds (I) Pvt. Ltd. ST/89973/2014-MUM 26.8.2011, 20.3.2012 & 22.10.2012 18.6.2006 To 31.3.2012 6 K.P. Sanghvi & Sons ST/90161/2014-MUM 28.3.2011 & 13.10.2011 June 2006 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on. The adjudicating authority did not agree with the contention raised by the appellants and after following the due process of law confirmed the demands raised along with interest and imposed penalties. 4. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of all the appellants would take us through the records of the case. After taking us through the show cause notices and the impugned orders, he would submit that the demands which have been confirmed by invoking the extended period are liable to be set aside as the appellant herein had filed a Writ Petition No. 2482 of 2006 on 8 th September, 2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay challenging the constitutional validity of levy of service tax on services rendered and received from outside Ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....vat credit and on this ground itself, the demands needs to be set aside. 5. Ld. Special Counsel appointed by the Revenue would take us through the records again and submit that the appellants were directed to produce various records for ascertaining the correct tax liability. He would submit that none of the appellants responded positively to the summons issued and were always claiming that writ petition filed by them challenging the constitutional validity is still pending. It is his submission that after the date of payment of commission to the foreign entity was provided, the Revenue issued the show cause notices hence there was delay from the appellants end for which there cannot be a claim of limitation. He would submit that on meri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Apex Court, holding that the service tax liability would arise under the reverse charge mechanism w.e.f 18.4.2006. Accordingly, in view of the law being settled we hold that on merits, the appellants appeal do not succeed. 9. At the same time, we find that all the appellants have been taking a consistent plea before the adjudicating authority that they were under a bona fide belief that the writ petition which has been filed by them has been filed by them has been admitted and is still pending, hence they need not discharge any service tax liability. On perusal of the records, we find that factually appellants had filed writ petition on 8.9.2006 and it was admitted by the Hon'ble High Court and departments Affidavit was filed on ....