Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (10) TMI 512 - CESTAT MUMBAIInterpretation of statute - Section 67 as well as rule 6(1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 were amended on 10-5-2008 - effective date of amendment - retrospective or prospective effect to amendment? - Held that: - CBEC vide letters No. 334/1/2008 dated 29.02.2008 clarified that service tax is required to be paid after receipt of payment or crediting/debiting of the amount in the books of accounts, whichever is earlier - reliance also placed in the decision in the case of SIFY TECHNOLOGIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. & ST., LTU, CHENNAI [2010 (11) TMI 232 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], where it was held that no retrospective effect can be given to the changes made in the Rules and in the Finance Act on 10-5-2008 - demand for the period prior to 10-5-2008 cannot be sustained. Moreover demand for period prior to 18-4-2006 cannot be sustain on the appellant on the ground that Section 66A was introduced only on 18-4-2006. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - Tribunal in the case of General Motors India Pvt ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Exicse, Pune [2015 (9) TMI 1097 - CESTAT MUMBAI], has roughly in similar circumstances set aside the invocation of extended period - extended period not invokable - extended period cannot be invoked in this case. Royalty - taxability - interpretation of statute - Rule 6(1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 - demand of interest - Held that: - identical issue has been dealt with by the Tribunal in the case of Sify Technologies Ltd. v. CCE & ST, LTU, Chennai, wherein the Tribunal has held that the Explanation added to Rule 6(1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 cannot be given retrospective effect. The ratio of the above judgment of the Tribunal is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and just on account of use of the words for the removal of doubts in the Explanation to Rule 6(1), this explanation cannot be treated as a clarificatory explanation having retrospective effect - the demand for the interest for alleged delay in discharging service tax liability by the due date is not sustainable. The matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority for re-calculating the liabilities - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|