Appeal Dismissed: Reverse Charge Mechanism Not Applicable Pre-2006Demand of service tax - Reverse charge mechanism - Import of taxable service - Held that:- issue involved in this case is no longer res integra in the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Assn Vs. Union of India [2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], wherein it has been held that the reverse the mechanism became operative only from 18.04.2006 when Section 66A was introduced in the finance act 1994. As the period involved in this case is prior to ... ... ... Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Appeal confirming demand under reverse charge mechanism for imported taxable service during 2002-03; Interpretation of Rule 2(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994; Applicability of reverse charge mechanism pre and post 18.04.2006.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging the Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2009, which had set aside the primary adjudicatory authority's decision confirming a demand of Rs. 2,34,979 under reverse charge mechanism for imported taxable service during the period 2002-03. The Revenue argued that as per Rule 2(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994, the recipient of service was liable to pay service tax.

Upon hearing the case, it was noted that there was no representation from the respondents. The Tribunal considered the Revenue's contention and referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Assn Vs. Union of India [2009 (13) STR 235 (Bomb) / 2010 (17) STR 557 (SC)], which clarified that the reverse charge mechanism became effective only from 18.04.2006 with the introduction of Section 66A in the Finance Act 1994. Since the period in question in this case was prior to 18.04.2006, the Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal was not sustainable and subsequently dismissed it. Demand of service tax - Reverse charge mechanism - Import of taxable service - Held that:- issue involved in this case is no longer res integra in the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Assn Vs. Union of India [2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], wherein it has been held that the reverse the mechanism became operative only from 18.04.2006 when Section 66A was introduced in the finance act 1994. As the period involved in this case is prior to 18.04.2006, Revenues appeal is not sustainable - Decided against Revenue. C.C.E., Meerut-II Versus M/s. SRF Ltd.
Service Tax
2015 (8) TMI 401 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI - AT
Dated:- 16-7-2015
Appeal No. ST/854/2009-CU[DB] - Final Order No. 52340/2015
Service Tax
Mr. G. Raghuram, President and Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical), JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri BB Sharma, DR For the Respondent : Shri R. Krishnan, Advocate ORDER Per Mr. R.K. Singh : Appeal has been filed against Order-in-Appeal dated 30.06.2009 which set aside the order of the primary adjudicatory authority in terms of which demand of Rs. 2,34,979/- (along with interest and penalties) was confirmed under reverse charge mechanism on the ground that the appellant had imported taxable service during the period 2002-03. 2. In its appeal, Revenue has contended that as per Rule 2(1)(d) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 the recipient of service was liable to pay service tax 3. When the case was called today, there was no representation from the side of the respondents. 4. We have considered the Revenues contention. The issue involved in this case is no longer res integra in the light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Assn Vs. Union of India [2009 (13) STR 235 (Bomb) / 2010 (17) STR 557 (SC)]), wherein it has been held that the reverse the mechanism became operative only from 18.04.2006 when Section 66A was introduced in the finance act 1994. As the period involved in this case is prior to 18.04.2006, Revenues appeal is not sustainable and is therefore dismissed.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders