TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 790X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent. [Judgment per : N. Kumar, J.]. The Revenue has preferred these two appeals challenging the order passed by the tribunal holding in one appeal that there is no liability of service tax prior to 18-4-2006 and in the second that, the penalty imposed for the period prior to 18-4-2006 cannot be sustained. 2. The assessee is a wholly owned 100% subsidiary of Metro Cash and Carry, Germany, and operates cash and carry distribution centres in India. MCC, Germany is the management entity for ail cash and carry activities of Metro group worldwide. MCC, Germany is the proprietor of the trademark, service mark, brand name Metro . MCC India, i.e., the assesses has entered into a License Agreement dated 4-10-2001 with MCC Germany wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , he did not proceed to decide the said issue on merits. As under the Act, the liability to pay the service tax by the recipient in respect of service received from a service provider who is outside the country and who has no establishment in India is only from 18-4-2006, the period is in question. Therefore, relying on the judgment of the Bombay High Court, which was affirmed by the Apex Court, the liability is only after 18-4-2006 and no liability could be foisted earlier to this period. Therefore, it set aside the impugned order, both the demands as well as the liability. Aggrieved by the said order of the tribunal, the revenue is in appeal. 4. The learned counsel for the revenue contended that the tribunal committed a serious error i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the Central Government under sub-section 2 of Section 68. Hence, in this regard, Notification No. 36/2004 is issued. In fact, there is an amendment to that notification. By way of notification No. 9/06 and yet another amendment by way of Notification No. 24/05 and also 10/06, in one of these notification issued, the Central Government has specifically states that the recipient of the service is liable to pay tax. It is in this background, it is necessary to see what the parliament did. Probably after noticing this loophole, they have amended the Act by Finance Act, 2006, which came into effect from 2006 providing for the recipient of such service as the person liable to pay the service tax. 6. This provision and the notifications cam ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
