TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1162
X X X X Extracts X X X X
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
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
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
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....