Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2017 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 1708 - AT - Service TaxDemand of service tax - export of services - import of services - other services rendered within India - reverse charge mechanism - Circular dated 24.02.2009 - HELD THAT:- It is an admitted fact on record that the appellant had received the services from the Overseas Service Provider prior to 18.04.2006. Since Section 66 A was inserted by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 1.5.2006, we are of the view that the services provided prior to 18.04.2006 will not be leviable to service tax under reverse charge mechanism. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India [ 2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] has held that the recipient of taxable service is liable to pay service tax only w.e.f. 18.04.2006. Further, the CBEC vide Circular dated 26.09.2011 has also endorsed such view - Thus, the Commissioner should examine the judgement of the Honb’ble Bombay High Court and the circular of CBEC and accordingly decide the issue, whether the appellant should be eligible for the benefit or not. Export of service - HELD THAT:- The appellant has provided scientific and technical consultancy service for the benefit of overseas service receivers. The circular dated 24.02.2009 issued by CBEC has clarified that such type of service falls under the “category III service” and as per Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Export Service Rules, no service tax shall be leviable on such service. However, the adjudicating authority has not discussed this aspect in the impugned order - the adjudicating authority is required to examine the case of the appellant as to whether it is governed under the Export of Service Rules as per the decision of the Tribunal and the Circular of CBEC referred supra for a proper finding on the issue. Other services provided by the appellant within the country - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority should verify the payment particulars made by the appellant. Any amount against the liability confirmed, if not paid, the same should be recovered, since the appellant has not contested the liability confirmed in the adjudication order. The matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication - appeal allowed by way of remand.
|