TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (1) TMI 1114
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....missioner (AR) for respondent ORDER Per: C J Mathew The order-in-original no. 07/ST/Commr/2015 dated 3rd March 2015 of Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Aurangabad now impugned before us by appellant, M/s Lombardini India Pvt Ltd, appears to be an unconnected collation of facts, which are undisputed, and of law, which have been cited with casual disregard of their applic....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding to us, is contrary to the deeming fiction of 'recipient' being the 'provider' and the provisions of Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006. The findings in the impugned order, reflecting the allegation in the show cause notice, confirms tax liability of Rs. 1,58,00,803, along with interest thereon, and imposing penalty of like amount, but also ind....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is mere technical breach and is quite understandable considering that the liability to tax has been judicially held to come into effect only from 18th April 2006 in consequence of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India [2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom)]. 4. The tax liability devolves on the appellant, notwithstanding being the recipien....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the appellant on the appropriate and proper determination of liability would suffice to exclude the scope for imposition of penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. At the same time, we also cannot ignore the submission of Learned Counsel that, with the decision of the Tribunal in re Catapro Technologies v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nashik [2017 (48) STR 94 (Tri-Mumbai)], the taxab....