TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 705X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Finance Act, 1994, for the earlier period, the demand would not be sustainable. In view of the above developments, we allow the petitioners to appear before the adjudicating authority, who, we are sure, will grant a full hearing to the petitioners and take a final decision in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made in the case of Commissioner, Service Tax v. Quintiles Data Processing Centre (I) Pvt. Ltd. [2011 (4) TMI 585 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] and Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India [2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] that may be applicable and brought to his notice. - Special Civil Application No. 6948 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2013 - AKIL KURESHI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SONIA GOKANI, JJ. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efined under rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 as amended. (ii) The total/gross amount of ₹ 5,59,45,812 paid towards brokerage/commission to the foreign agents should not be considered as taxable value under the category of business auxiliary service for the period from July 1, 2003 to March 31, 2007 and service tax amounting to ₹ 56,93,236 should not be demanded and recovered from them under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, invoking the larger period of five years, as discussed hereinabove. (iii) Interest as applicable on the amount of service tax liability of ₹ 56,93,236 should not be paid by them for the delay in making the payment, under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. We may record that a part of the demand raised in the show-cause notice relates to the period prior to April 18, 2006 and a part thereof relates to the later period. 6. Counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India reported in [2009] 21 VST 60 (Bom); [2009] 90 RLT 739 (Bom), wherein referring to and relying upon the decision of the apex court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India [2009] 21 VST 60 (Bom); [2009] 90 RLT 739 (Bom), and the decision of the apex court in the case of Laghu Udyog Bharati v. Union of India reported in [2005] 1 VST 24 (SC); [1999] 115 STC 616 (SC); [2006] 2 STR 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
