Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2010 (11) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2010 (11) TMI 232 - AT - Service TaxRefund of interest - Delay in paymenent of service tax - Provision for demanding service tax in respect of transactions between associated enterprises, immediately upon amendment, has been introduced only w.e.f. 10-5-08. Prior to 10-5-08, neither the Finance Act, 1994 nor the Service Tax Rules, 1994 contain any provision enabling demand of service tax prior to the realization of taxable services, in any circumstances -Notification No. 19/08 introducing Explanation to Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 contains a provision that it shall be effective only from the date of its publication - The amendment to Section 67 is a substantive one and will be applicable only from the date of its introduction and not retrospectively, eventhough the Explanation uses the expression “for removal of doubt" - The decision of the Tribunal in CCE, Pune v. Bajaj Auto Ltd.relied upon by the lower appellate authority to conclude that the amendment, which is clarificatory in nature, is retrospective, is not applicable in the facts of the present case, as the Tribunal held in that case that clarificatory amendments are retrospective only when they did not materially change, the existing provisions - In the instant case, there was no provision either in Section 67 of the Finance Act or Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules to suggest that in the case of transactions between associated enterprises, service tax has to be paid immediately on entry of the transaction in the books of account - Agree with the contention of the assessees that there was no delay in payment of service tax and that therefore they were entitled to refund of interest of ₹ 6,21,918/-, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
|