Skip to content


M/S.Suolificio Chennai Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai

Decided On

Case Number

Appeal No.S/01 of 2008

Judge

Appellant

M/S.Suolificio Chennai

Respondent

Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai

Advocates:

Ms.Sridevi, Adv., Shri C. Dhanasekaran, SDR

Excerpt:


.....the finance act, 1994 was enacted. 2. on hearing both sides, i find that the issue stands settled by the decision of the hon ble bombay high court in indian national shipowners association vs union of india and ors. [2008-tiol-633-hc-mum-st] and the hon ble delhi high court in unitech ltd. vs commissioner of service tax, delhi [2009 (15) s.t.r.385 (del.)]. the decision of the bombay high court has been followed by the tribunal in sharadha terry products ltd. vs commissioner of central excise, salem [2009-tiol-1769-cestat-mad]. 3. following the ratio of the above decisions, i set aside the demand as it pertains to the period prior to enactment of section 66a on 18.04.2006 and allow the appeal.

Judgment:


In this case, Intellectual Property Right service was rendered to the assessee in India. The period of receipt of the Intellectual Property Right service is upto to October, 2003. The question which arises for determination in this appeal is whether the appellants are liable to service tax during the relevant period according to the assessees, the date from which they would be required to discharge the liability of service tax is 18.04.2006 which is the date on which Section 66A to Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 was enacted.

2. On hearing both sides, I find that the issue stands settled by the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in Indian National Shipowners Association Vs Union of India and Ors. [2008-TIOL-633-HC-MUM-ST] and the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Unitech Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [2009 (15) S.T.R.385 (Del.)]. The decision of the Bombay High Court has been followed by the Tribunal in Sharadha Terry Products Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem [2009-TIOL-1769-CESTAT-MAD].

3. Following the ratio of the above decisions, I set aside the demand as it pertains to the period prior to enactment of Section 66A on 18.04.2006 and allow the appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //