TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 798X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act. - Revenue filed an appeal against the order - Held that:- where there was wilful contravention of the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Act, with a view to evade payment of service tax, provisions of sub-section 3 would not apply, in view of the provisions of sub-section 4 of Section 73. It is axiomatic Legislation is operative proprio vigore on its enactment and effectuation. The ope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Respondent : Shri Manoj Kutty, AR PER : G Raghuram By the adjudication order dated 13.12.2011, the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise, Ahmedabad-II confirmed appellant's liability to service tax, as the recipient of the taxable service - Business Auxiliary Service, defined in Section 65 (19), read with Section 65 (105) ZZB of the Finance Act, 1994; and appropriated Rs. 9,74,252/- towards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order dated 14.5.2012 (impugned herein), reversed the conclusion of the adjudicating authority. Commissioner (Appeals) concluded that the adjudicating authority had erroneously invoked provisions of Section 73 (3) of the Act and that, where there was wilful contravention of the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Act, with a view to evade payment of service tax, provisions of sub-section 3 would not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y of a service recipient, in respect of taxable service provided to such locally established recipient, by a service provider having an overseas establishment, to remit service tax is clear and unequivocal, beyond a scintilla of doubt. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that since provisions of Section 66A were in challenge before various Courts, the appellant assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
