9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich royalty per annum was being paid @ 2.5% on the annual sales turnover. The intellectual property rights service became taxable in the year 2004. Since, the appellant were not paying service tax on the royalty amount being paid by them to their foreign collaborator whose technology was being used for manufacture of PHPG under licence, two show cause notices dated 07/1/08 and 11/3/08 were issued to them for payment of service tax amounting to Rs. 14,98,776/- alongwith interest for the period from October 2004 to December 2007 and also for imposition of penalty. The above show cause notices were adjudicated by the Additional Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 26/02/09 by which she confirmed the above-mentioned service tax demand alon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provisions in this regard had been introduced w.e.f. 18/4/06 by introducing Section 66A and that in view of judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.), during the period prior to 18/04/06, service tax could not be charged from the service recipient in India in respect of the service provided to them by off-shore service providers, that in spite of this, the appellant paid the service tax for the entire period including the period prior to 18/4/06 alongwith interest thereon, that the entire amount of service tax paid by the appellant was available to them as Cenvat credit, and, hence, there could not be any intention on their part to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onsidered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. 6. It is seen that the original Adjudicating Authority has confirmed service tax demand by invoking extended period under proviso to Section 73 (1) on the basis of finding that the non-payment of the service tax was attributable to their intention to evade the tax. This finding of the Additional Commissioner has not been challenged by the appellant. Once such finding is given, there would be no scope for the conclusion that the appellant did not discharge the service tax liability due to bonafide reasons. Confirmation of service tax demand by invoking proviso to Section 73 (1) and waiver of penalty by invoking Section 80 do not go hand in hand. In view of this, we do no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
