Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 244 - AT - Service TaxNon-payment of service tax - Management Consultant Services received form the overseas providers - Business Auxiliary Services provided in India - Held that:- The words “The Central Excise Officer” used in Section 73 (1) & 73 (2) of Finance Act, 1994 cannot be read to be the same officer. It suffices if a Central Excise Officer is vested with such powers becomes “The Central Excise Officer” for the purposes of the Sections referred above. It is not the case of the appellants that the ADG, DGCEI issued the SCN and the Commissioner of Central Excise who adjudicated the case is not Central Excise Officers. In bureaucracy, officers keep on changing due to transfers, etc. If one considers the proposition that the same officer who has issued the SCN should adjudicate the case leads to an impracticable situation. Reverse charge mechanism - services availed from a provider located outside India - Liability of service tax - Held that:- The appellants are not required to pay Service Tax under ‘reverse charge mechanism’ for the period prior to 18.04.2006 even though a payment for the part of the period was received after 18.04.2006. Liability of service tax - commission charges received - Cum-duty benefit - Held that:- The appellants are entitled for cum-duty benefit for the Service Tax payable or paid by them for the period 09.07.2004 to 31.03.2007. For this reason issue needs to go back to the adjudicating authority to compute the cum-duty Service Tax for the period 09.07.2004 to 31.03.2007. Extended period of limitation - penalty - Held that:- The appellants have not demonstrated their bonafides vis-à-vis invocation of extended period. It is not the case of the appellants that they have kept the Department informed of all their activities and made a mention of the same in the CT-3 Returns. In the absence of the same, the Department would have no way to find out the taxable services rendered by the appellants and the remuneration received. Therefore, the extended period is squarely invokable in the case - the penalty cannot be imposed under both Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 during the relevant period. Therefore, the penalties imposed under Section 76 is set aside. Appeal allowed by way of remand.
|