TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India during the material period. We are of the view that, for the ends of justice, a reasonable opportunity for this purpose should be afforded to the appellant. - appeal allowed by way of remand. Notification no. 21/2003 - retrospective effect - held that: - Notification No.21/2003-ST was issued as an independent Notification granting the benefit of exemption from payment of Service Tax on taxable services for which consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange. It had nothing to do with the rescission of Notification No. 6/1999-ST ibid. No material has been placed on record to show that, during the interregnum between the rescission of Notification 6/1999-ST and the issue of Notification 21/2003-ST, the Central Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovided to any person and the consideration therefor was received in India in convertible foreign exchange. But there was a proviso to the effect that the exemption would not be available where the payment received in India in convertible foreign exchange for taxable services rendered was repatriated from, or sent outside, India. The Notification was rescinded by the Central Government by Notification No. 2/2003-ST dated 01.03.2003 except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such rescission. However, Notification No. 21/2003-ST dated 20.11.2003 came to be issued by the Central Government exempting all taxable services provided to any person in respect of which payment was received in India in convertible foreign exchange, fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a irrespective of whether the payment therefor was received in foreign exchange or not. The Audit Report and, on that basis, the show-cause notice worked out the Service Tax to be Rs. 6,20,384/-. Obviously, the show-cause notice invoked the extended period of limitation for recovery of this amount of Service Tax in addition to certain other demands with which we are not presently concerned. 2.3. In a reply to the show-cause notice, the assessee mainly pleaded that Notification No. 21/2003-ST dated 20.11.2003 was clarificatory and retrospective and, therefore, the benefit of exemption from payment of Service Tax was available to them. They also relied on Circular No. 56/5/2003-ST dated 25.04.2003. They also claimed support from case law. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore 2006 (206) ELT 897(Tri.-Bang.) and India Cements Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy 2010 (261) ELT 344(Tri.-Chennai), the learned counsel has argued that the Notification issued by the Central Government on 20.11.2003 purported to reinstate the benefit of exemption and hence should be held to be clarificatory and retrospective. Secondly, it has been contended that the service in question was exported from India and, therefore, the same was not exigible to Service Tax as clarified by the Board in Circular dated 25.04.2003 notwithstanding the rescission of Notification No. 6/1999-ST. In this connection, reliance is placed on SGS India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use notice was based on the said report. In this scenario, according to the learned counsel, a reasonable opportunity is liable to be given to the assessee to plead and establish the fact that the service in question had been exported from India during the material period. We are of the view that, for the ends of justice, a reasonable opportunity for this purpose should be afforded to the appellant. 5.2. There is yet another reason why the matter must go back to the original authority. The assessee had pleaded limitation in their reply to the show-cause notice. They contended to the effect that they believed bona fide that the intention of the Government in issuing Notification No. 21/2003-ST was to grant exemption from payment of Service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No. 6/1999-ST ibid. The facts of this case, thus, stand on a different footing vis-a-vis those of W.P.I.L. Ltd (supra). The Tribunal's decisions cited by the learned counsel were rendered merely by relying on the apex Court's decision in the facts and circumstances of those cases. In our view, Notification No.21/2003-ST was issued as an independent Notification granting the benefit of exemption from payment of Service Tax on taxable services for which consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange. It had nothing to do with the rescission of Notification No. 6/1999-ST ibid. No material has been placed on record to show that, during the interregnum between the rescission of Notification 6/1999-ST and the issue of Noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
