2012 (10) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t Jamshedpur. They received designs and drawings, supervision services and supervision for engineering/manufacturing activities in India from various companies located outside the territory of India, under their expansion plan of their steel plant. These services were received by the Appellant from the Foreign Service provider who did not have any office in India. The proceedings were initiated against the Appellant on the ground that they are not paying the Service Tax on the services, falling under the category of Consultancy Engineering Service as specified in Section 65(31) of the Finance Act, 1994, received by them. Section 66A was inserted in the Finance Act with effect from 18.04.2006 by the Finance Bill, 2006. Thereunder, a service .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... show cause-cum-demand notice. The contention is that since they had paid the Service Tax, there was no contravention of any provisions of the said Act and there can be no imposition of any penalty upon the Appellant. The demand for interest is also untenable. Further, the contention is that the condition precedent for invocation of the Proviso to Section 73(1) of the Act and Section 78 of the Act thereof, being the same, since as aforesaid, the Proviso to Section 73(1) of the said Act is inapplicable and the condition precedent for invoking Section 78 of the Act has also been satisfied. The imposition of penalty upon the Appellant under Section 78 of the Act by the impugned Order is, therefore, not sustainable. The contention is that the le .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... residence in a country other than India and such services are received by the recipient at its place of business, fixed establishment, permanent address or place of residence in India. From 19.04.2006, the Appellant paid the Service Tax, is not in dispute. In this case, the Appellant are only contesting the payment of interest and imposition of penalty. So far as payment of interest on delayed payment of Service Tax as per Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 is concerned, Section 75 reads as under: SECTION 75.?Interest on delayed payment of service tax. Every person, liable to pay the tax in accordance with the provisions of section 68 or rules made thereunder, who fails to credit the tax or any part thereof to the account of the Central .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X