Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2015 (12) TMI 1162

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....lant Shri  Rakesh Goyal Additional Commissioner  (A.R) for respondent ORDER Per : S.S. Kang Heard both sides. 2.Appellant filed these appeals against the orders passed by the adjudicating authority, as common issued is involved therefore appeals are being taken up together. 3.In appeal No.ST/306/09-Mum. demand of Rs. 6,07,64,333/- is confirmed for the period 1.3.2002 to 31.12.2004 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Service provider is not sustainable.  In view of the decision of Honble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.). The Honble High Court held that the recipient of service is not liable to pay service tax in respect of the taxable services received from abroad prior to 18.4.2006. In the  present case ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....had not disputed this demands are not sustainable and pleaded demand on this issue. 7.The Revenue relied upon the findings of lower authority. Ld. A.R. appearing for Revenue submitted that the demand which is confirmed by denying credit the service tax is not contested before the adjudicating authority.  The appellant had not contested this demand   even in the reply to the show ca....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onble Supreme Court.  In view of the above decision, the demands of service tax which are confirmed on the basis of reverse charge mechanism are not sustainable and the consequential penalties are also set aside. 9.In respect of the demand of Rs. 14,23,078/- and Rs. 57,63,677/- which are confirmed after denying credit of service tax availed by the appellant.  We find that the adjudicat....