9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Agent(s) and also the appellant provides certain incentives to its agent(s), which form part of remuneration, according to the Revenue. Accordingly, show-cause notice was issued dated 30.5.2005 putting the appellant to notice as to why not Service Tax of Rs. 38,92,735/- be demanded on reverse charge basis, in terms of Section 73(1) read with Section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Further penalty was also proposed under Section 76 and 78. The show-cause notice was adjudicated vide Order-in-Original dated 30.11.2005. The proposed demand was confirmed save and except the amount attributable to referral fee, which was paid to the Insurance Agent. Further, interest was also demanded and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... person who is a non-resident or is from outside India and does not have any office in India. In other words, apart from the four services specifically mentioned as items (i) (ii) (iii) and (iv) in Part A, where 'any' taxable service is provided from outside India, by a non-resident who does not have any office in India, the recipient became liable for paying service tax. It is clear that besides the services specified in Part A for which there may be specific reasons, so far as the service provided from abroad is concerned, the service provider could not be made liable to pay service tax and brought under the net of service tax in the absence of the apparent mechanism to collect and recover tax from them. A different provision, ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax generally is on the provider of service, where liability is to be fastened on any other person, the service (s) in relation to which liability is to be so fastened, has also to be identified and specified. It is relevant to mention that services had been specified in the erstwhile sub-section (1A) of Section 68, itself, - corresponding to present sub-section (2) in which it has now been left to the Central Government to do so by a notification. 13. On behalf of the appellant attention was drawn to the fact that whenever any addition was made in the list of taxable service for the purposes of Section 68(2), corresponding amendment was made in the Rules i.e. rule 2(1)(d) of the Service Tax Rules. For example, the service 'in relation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l to each other and in the absence of either, service tax cannot be collected or recovered (in respect of the specified services)." Thus, the Larger Bench concurred with the view expressed in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the appellant prays for allowing the appeal. 4. The learned AR relies on the impugned order. 5. Having considered the rival contention, we hold, in view of the notification published in the Gazette of the Central Government on 31.12.2004 and made effective from 1.1.2005, no tax can be demanded from the appellant assessee on reverse charge basis prior to 1.1.2005. We further observe that such payment made by appellant as receiver of service to its agent like gift, foreign trip as well as cash prizes, which are in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
