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

TMI Blog

Home

2021 (3) TMI 465

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... al in the case of M/S VOLKSWAGEN INDIA PVT LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2013 (11) TMI 298 - CESTAT MUMBAI] , M/S NISSIN BRAKE INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS CCE, JAIPUR I [ 2018 (5) TMI 1223 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] , SPIRAX MARSHALL P. LTD., FORBES MARSHALL P. LTD. J.N. MARSHALL P. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE I [ 2015 (11) TMI 978 - CESTAT MUMBAI] and COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORATION INDIA PVT LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, NOIDA [ 2014 (4) TMI 252 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] . Thus, it is now a settled legal position that in an arrangement like this, the deputed employees will be working as employees of the Indian company. The parent company is not supplying manpower to Indian company. Therefore, no service tax .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... organization M/s Yutaka, Japan, was liable to pay service tax on the amounts paid as salaries to these employees of the parent company working with the appellant. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 15 October 2015 was issued to the appellant invoking extended period of limitation and calling upon them to explain why an amount of ₹ 68,54,714/- should not be recovered from them under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 invoking extended period of limitation read with Section 65 (105) (k), (the charging section) and Section 66A (provision on reverse charge). It was also proposed to charge interest on the aforesaid amount under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. Further, it was proposed to impose a penalty under Section 78 of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... subsidiary has been rejected by the Tribunal in the case of Volkswagen India (Pvt.) Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I 2014 (34) S.T.R. 135 (Tri. Mum.). An appeal against this order was dismissed by the Hon ble Supreme Court in 2016 (42) S.T.R. J145 (S.C.) though, on the ground of undue delay in filing the appeal. Identical issue was also before the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nissin Brake India Pvt. Ltd. versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur I 2019 (24) G.S.T.L. 563 (Tri. Del.) and it was again decided that getting manpower from the parent company whose salaries are paid by the Indian subsidiary does not amount to parent company supplying manpower. No service tax is payable on such sal .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ses as mentioned above, nothing survives in this order-in-original which needs to be set aside in toto. 6. He further submits that while the impugned order invoking extended period of limitation was passed by the learned Commissioner, demand for the subsequent period confirmed by the lower authority in their own case was set aside by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) by order-in-appeal No. 358 (CRM)/ST/JPR/ 2019 dated 03 October 2019. This order-in-appeal has not been appealed against by the Revenue and, therefore, the issue has also reached finality in their own case also. 7. Learned Departmental Representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 8. We have examined the records of the case and submissions made by .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates