- (1.) 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').
(2.) 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 has held that any transaction prior to 18.4.2006 will not be exigible to the service 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 has been dismissed on 14.12.2009.
(3.) 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 as also the view taken by the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association , 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.;