Dismissed

Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S Shri Ram Knitters

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Jan 2012STA/1/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Bench disposed of two Service Tax Appeals, upholding Tribunal orders that services rendered to assessee-respondents by non-residents before Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 came into force were not exigible to service tax, aligning with Bombay and Punjab-Haryana High Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Service tax appeals were dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's order that pre-Sixty-Six-A services were not exigible.

Commissioner of Central Excise Vs M/S Shri Ram… — GST and Indirect Tax | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

Date of Decision: January 4, 2012

¶3

STA No. 1 of 2012 (O&M)

¶4

Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana …Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

M/s Shri Ram Knitters, Ludhiana.

¶7

…Respondent

¶8

STA No. 2 of 2012 (O&M)

¶9

Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Ludhiana ...Appellant Versus

¶10

M/s The Designer's, Jalandhar

¶11

...Respondent

¶12

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶13

Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, Sr. Standing Counsel (Indirect Taxes) for the appellant.

¶14

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶15

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶16

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶17

This order shall dispose of STA Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012, which have been preferred by the Revenue under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, against the order dated 29.11.2010 and 24.12.2010 respectively passed by the Customs, Excise and Services Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity, 'the Tribunal').

¶18

The short issue involved in these appeals is “what is the effect of insertion and implementation of Section 66A in the Finance Act, 1994”. It was by the aforesaid provision that the service tax was levied. The provision was introduced on 18.4.2006. The Tribunal by placing reliance on a judgement of the Bombay High Court rendered in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India, 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom.) has held that any transaction prior to 18.4.2006 will not be exigible to the service

¶19

STA Nos. 1 and 2 of 2012 (O&M)

¶20

¶21

tax and accordingly accepted the appeal of the assesseerespondent. Even the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 18932 of 2009, filed by the Revenue against the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association (supra) has been dismissed on 14.12.2009.

¶22

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we find that the matter is no longer res integra. A similar order passed by the Tribunal was challenged by the Revenue in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s Kansal Hosiery Exports (STA No. 16 of 2011, decided on 2.1.2012). After noticing the observations made in para 4 of the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Ludhiana v. Bhandari Hosiery Exports Ltd., 2010 (18) STR 713 (P&H) as also the view taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association (supra), we came to the conclusion that any service provided to the assessee-respondent by a non-resident prior to insertion of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, was not exigible to service tax. Accordingly we dismissed the aforesaid appeal of the revenue, vide judgment dated 2.1.2012. Mr. H.P.S. Ghuman, learned counsel for the revenue has not been able to point out any distinguishing feature in these appeals.

¶23

In view of above, these appeals are also dismissed in terms of judgment dated 2.1.2012 rendered in the case of M/s Kansal Hosiery Exports (supra) . A copy of the judgment dated 2.1.2012 rendered in STA No. 16 of 2011 be made part of this order.

¶24

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected appeal.

¶25

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶26

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶27

January 4, 2012 PKapoor

Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S Shri Ram Knitters

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/S Shri Ram Knitters

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjeev Kumar Vs State Bank of India

Bhushan Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors.

Subhash Chand Vs State of Punjab and Others

Krishan Kumar and Anr. Vs I.C.I.C.I. Bank Home Finance Company Limited and Ors.

M/S Ultra Chemicals Ltd. Vs State of Haryana

Punjab State Industrial Develp Vs Union of India