TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 397X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ise only from 18.4.2006 set aside the impugned order and appeal is allowed. - ST/376 & 1 OF 2007 - 1063 AND 1064 OF 2009 - Dated:- 13-8-2009 - P. KARTHIKEYAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER AND M.V. RAVINDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER K.S. Ravishankar and G. Shivadas for the Appellant. Ms. Joy Kumari Chander and Ms. Sudha Koka for the Respondent. ORDER M.V. Ravindran, Judicial Member - These two appeals are filed by the assessees against impugned Order-in-Original 74/2007, dated 17-7-2007 and 60/2006, dated 5-10-2006, since the issues involved in these cases are identical, they are being disposed by a common order. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are both the appellants in this case have been charged with non-payment of servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-resident or from outside India. It is the submission that the service tax liability on the recipient of the services would come into effect only from 18-4-2006 when section 66A was brought into Finance Act. Learned counsel would rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association v. UOI [2009] 18 STT 212 and Unitech Ltd. v. CST [2008] 17 STT 149 (New Delhi - CESTAT). 5. It is his submission that an identical view was taken by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. v. CCE [2008] 18 STT 67 (Delhi). 6. Learned SDR on the other hand would submit that the appellant in Appeal No. 1/07 has received services of 'intellectual property rights' inasmuch a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice tax from 1-3-2002 is concerned, perusal of that notification shows that by that notification service which is rendered or provided in the Continental Shelf Exclusive Economic Zone and Territorial Waters of India has been made taxable. That notification does not have the effect of levying service tax on the recipients of the service. Therefore, levy of service tax on the members of the petitioners-association on the basis of notification dated 1-3-2002 is plainly without authority of law. 17. Reliance is placed on the provisions of rule 2(1)(d)(iv) quoted above for justifying the levy of service tax for the period from 16-8-2002. Perusal of the above quoted rule 2(d)(iv) shows that by that provision a person liable for paying the serv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In the result, therefore, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Respondents are restrained from levying service tax from the members of the petitioners-association for the period from 1-3-2002 till 17-4-2006, in relation to the services received by the vessels and ships of the members of the petitioners-association outside India, from persons who are non-residents of India and are from outside India." (p. 223) 9. It is also seen that in an identical issue, when the Tribunal held a view against the assessee, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Unitech Ltd. (supra), the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held as under :— "5.1 In view of the above the following substantial question of law has arise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
