2009 (5) TMI 76

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....le for the Appellant. K. Lal for the Respondent. ORDER 1. In adjudication of a show-cause notice dated 30-11-2006, the original authority had confirmed demand of service tax of Rs. 5,37,123 against the assessee under section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 for the period from October, 2004 to March, 2006 and had also ordered recovery of interest on tax under section 75 of the Act. It had also....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ior to 18-4-2006, the date on which section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 was enacted. In this connection, the Counsel refers to the Bombay High Court's decision in Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India [2009] STT 212, wherein it was held that, before enactment of section 66A, there was no authority vested in the Central Government to levy service tax from a person resident i....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....under sections 76, 77 and 78 were imposable on them. S.D.R. has also claimed support from the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India v. Dharamendra Textile Processors 2008 (231) ELT 3, as also from the order passed by the Court in the case of CCE v. Monarch Pipes Ltd. 2009 (235) ELT A-87 (SC). Referring to the Bombay High Court's judgment relied upon by the Counsel, it is submitted tha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the pre-existing rule which authorized the Government to levy service tax in the said manner was struck down. On this legal basis, the learned Counsel has argued that the department was not entitled to levy service tax from the appellant qua recipient of intellectual property service from abroad prior to 18-4-2006. The period of dispute in the present case is prior to this date. Therefore, it has....