Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (4) TMI 1399 - AT - Service TaxRefund claim - export of service/goods - as per the Revenue, the appellant have not actually exported their services and/or products, but have given services and or sold their products to Jubilant Biosys Ltd., as a sub-contractor or agent of theirs - Whether the appellant-assessee M/s Jubilant Chemsys Ltd. have exported their service and received convertible foreign exchange as required under the Export of Service Rules? Held that: - identical issue decided in the case of Jubilant Chemsys Limited Versus C.C. & C.E. & S.T. - Noida And (Vice-Versa) [2017 (7) TMI 62 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], where it was held that the appellant have been verified and examined the payments made by Jubilant Biosys Limited to Jubilant Chemsys Ltd for its share of activities under the work orders received from the parties located outside India. The appellant have satisfied both the conditions for export of service, namely rendering of service from India and receipt of the service by the client outside India of consideration in convertible foreign currency in India Applicability of proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that: - it is not a case of mis-declaration or suppression of facts but a case where there is a change of opinion on the manner of assessment by the Department - proviso to Section 73(1) and provisions of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are not applicable. Penalty u/s 76 - Held that: - there is no contumacious conduct on the part of the Assessee and the entire issue involves interpretation of the legal provisions. Moreover, the assessee has paid service tax to avoid any further dispute, in a revenue neutral situation - penalty set aside by invoking section 80. Demand of interest - Held that: - the issue is squarely covered by the decision in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs CCE Surat [2015 (1) TMI 41 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], where it was held that nterest is not payable with respect to duty required to be debited in the Cenvat Credit Account provided sufficient balance was available in the Cenvat Credit Account. Nothing has been brought on record that such a credit was not available in the Cenvat Account during the relevant period for debit - interest is not payable by the Appellant on the amount of duty paid through CENVAT account. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|