Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 258 - AT - Service TaxConsulting Engineer Service - Import of services - cost is included in the value of goods imported and customs duty paid - Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM) - service provider located outside India and was not having any permanent establishment or office in India - Time Limitation - Interest - penalty - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly Appellants have entered into contract for provision of services with the overseas service provider. The terms of Contracts are univocal and clear to this effect. The defence put forth by the Appellants for not paying the service tax on the service received by them in terms of Section 68 of Finance Act, 1994, is that they have discharged the customs duty, on the documents, drawing and designs received by them by adding the value of these as per the decision of Apex Court in case of ASSOCIATED CEMENT COMPANIES LTD. VERSUS CC [2001 (1) TMI 248 - SUPREME COURT], and hence demand of service tax on the same is contrary to the view expressed by the Apex Court, treating drawing and designs as goods. There are no merits in the submissions made by the learned Chartered Accountant to effect that since the value of services received by the Appellant from the overseas suppliers was included in the value of the goods imported by them, these services could not be subjected to service tax leviable under Finance Act, 1994. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- By not making proper and complete declaration in respect of the services received from overseas service provider, before the jurisdiction Service Tax Authorities and in their ST-3 return, on which service tax was to be discharged by the Appellant’s as per section 68 of Finance Act, 1994, Appellant have suppressed the necessary information and for the said suppression service tax demand invoking extended period limitation as per proviso to Section 73(1) is justified - the demand made in this Show Cause Notice by invoking the extended period of limitation as per proviso to Section 73(1) of Finance Act, 1994 is upheld. Interest - HELD THAT:- Since the demand of tax has been upheld the demand for interest will follow. It is now settled law that interest under Section 75, is for delay in the payment of tax from the date when it was due. Since appellants have failed to pay the said Service Tax by the due date interest demanded cannot be faulted. Penalties - HELD THAT:- Taking note of the fact that Appellants are a public sector undertaking, amounts demanded as service tax will be admissible to the Appellants will be admissible to them as CENVAT Credit and the provisions of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, though the penalties under Section 76, 77 & 78 are imposable, they should be waived by the application of Section 80. The appeal is partly allowed to the extent of setting aside the penalties imposed on the Appellant.
|