Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2014 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (11) TMI 85 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
Service tax liability on technical testing and analysis services received from foreign companies.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 2,26,86,780 from the appellant for the period from May 2006 to September 2010. The revenue claimed that the appellant is liable to pay service tax on technical testing and analysis services received from foreign companies. Additionally, interest and penalty were imposed. The services provided by the foreign companies to the appellants included laboratory services, validation of methods, sample analysis, provision of test compounds, materials, literature, data, and final reports. The appellant made payments in foreign currency for these services.

The appellant argued that the issue is covered by a previous Tribunal order in the case of Glaxosmithkline Consumer Healthcare Ltd., where a stay was granted under similar circumstances, as the services were performed abroad. After considering the facts and the previous Tribunal order, it was found that the services received by the appellants were similar to those in the Glaxosmithkline case. Therefore, a prima facie case for complete waiver was established. The Additional Commissioner argued that the service should be considered as partly performed, creating a liability. He relied on a decision in the case of Lotus Lab Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST, Bangalore. However, it was noted that this decision related to export of services, and without clear findings on the applicability of Export of Service Rules and Import of Services Rules, it could not be considered. Moreover, the decision relied upon by the Additional Commissioner was only a stay order, not a final order. Consequently, the requirement of predeposit was waived, and a stay against recovery was granted.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates