TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 959X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LHI] and it was held that the charging section which has been invoked for the period post 2012 does not exist at all and, therefore, there is no question of any ambiguity. Even if there is an ambiguity, it should go in favour of the assessee. As the demand for both the aforesaid period could not have been confirmed, the impugned order dated 28.07.2015 deserves to be set aside and is set aside - Appeal allowed. - SERVICE TAX APPEAL NO. 53536 OF 2015 - FINAL ORDER NO. 51000 /2022 - Dated:- 19-10-2022 - MR. DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND MR. P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Present for the Appellant : Ms. Neha Choudhary, Advocate Present for the Respondent: Shri Ravi Kapoor, Authorised Representative ORDER 1. The ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iod reported in M/s Hindustan Zinc Limited vs. Commissioner, Central Excise, Udaipur [ 2021 (9) TMI 859-CESTAT NEW DELHI ]. For the period from 01.07.2012 to 31.03.2013, learned counsel submitted that the demand has been proposed under section 66A of the Finance Act which did not even exist at the relevant time. In support of this contention, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in M/s Frisco Foods Private Limited vs. Commissioner, Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Dehradun [ 2021 (11) TMI 428-CESTAT NEW DELHI ]. 4. Shri Ravi Kapoor, learned authorised representative appearing for the Department has, however, supported the impugned order and has submitted that it is specifically deals with the various ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in terms of the Import Rules. Learned Counsel submitted that a charging provision has to be construed strictly and a heavy burden is cast upon the Department to prove that the demand is sustainable under the charging provisions. In this connection, learned Counsel placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner v/s Dilip Kumar Company. 10. To appreciate the aforesaid contention, it would be necessary to examine the relevant provisions of section 66 and 66A of the Finance Act. Section 66 is the charging section and it provides that there shall be levied service tax at the rate of 12 per cent of the value of taxable services referred to in various clauses of section 65(105). Section 66A of the Finance Act relates to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e mechanism post 1st July, 2012 in this case is Section 66A read with Section 65(105)(zzb). These sections did not exist after 1 July 2012 and, therefore, we find that any reference to any other legal provisions which may have existed during the relevant period and which could have been invoked is irrelevant. It is a well-settled legal principle that the charging section in any taxing statute must be strictly construed and in case of any ambiguity it should be interpreted in favour of the assessee. 14. In the present case, the charging section which has been invoked for the period post 2012 does not exist at all and, therefore, there is no question of any ambiguity. Even if there is an ambiguity, it should go in favour of the assessee. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
