TMI Blog2010 (5) TMI 179X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n accordance with law needs to be extended to them. On perusal of the entire Order-in-Original , we find that there is no classification of the services which have been received by the appellant and the entire demand has proceeded on the presumption that all the services which are received by the appellant are taxable as the recipient. - , for the period post 18/4/2006, matter remanded back - ST/113/09 - - - Dated:- 20-5-2010 - For approval and signature: Hon'ble Mr. M.V.Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. P.Karthikeyan, Member (Technical) Present: Mr.N.Venkatraman, Sr. Advocate and Mr.S.Muthuvenkatraman, Advocate for the appellant. Ms. Sudha Koka, SDR for the Revenue. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. M.V.Ravindran, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice. Coming to such conclusion, he confirmed the demand of the service tax and imposed penalties under Section 76 78 and also ordered for applicable interest on the amount of service tax so confirmed. 3. Ld. Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the period involved in this case is from 1/10/2002 to 31/3/2007. It is his submission that up to the period 18/4/2006, the issue stands settled in favour of the appellant by the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners, Association Vs. UOI 2009(13) STR 235 (Bom.)] , which has been maintained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court by dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue and as reported at 2010(17) STR J57(SC)]. It is his submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at up to 18/4/2006, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay will squarely cover the issue. It is her submission that post 18/4/2006, the question of classification of services may not arise at all as if they are the recipient of services, they are liable to pay service tax and submits that this Bench may take a view on that point. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the records. The issue involved in this case is whether the services received by the appellant from a NRI during the period 1/10/2002 to 31/3/2007 would be liable for service tax as a recipient of the services. 6. It is undisputed that the appellant herein is a recipient of the services provided by a person who is not situated in In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n also the Respondents do not get authority of law to levy a service tax in relation to the services rendered to the vessels and ships of the members of the Petitioners-association outside India. 20. "It appears that a similar provision in the rules was made applicable by the Government in relation to the Clearing Agents by making customers of the Clearing Agent liable for levy of the service tax. That question has been decided by the Supreme Court by its judgment in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati (supra) and the Supreme Court has clearly laid down that the imposition of the service tax is on the persons rendering the services and by making a provision in the Rules, levy of tax cannot be shifted to the recipients of the services and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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." 7. We also find that the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgement of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court . Since the law is settled, we are of the considered view that the service tax liability on the appellant prior to 18/4/2006 is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside and we do so. Consequ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
