Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Canvasm Technologies Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise And Service Tax, Noida

2015 (5) TMI 741 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Waiver of pre deposit - Business Auxiliary Service - Reverse charge mechanism - Revenue neutrality - Held that:- CAI were providing the services to the customers of the appellants as per the agreement between CAI and the appellants and the payment for the same was made by the appellants to CAI. Thus, CAI was engaged in providing services in relation to provision of service on behalf of client which in this case is the appellants. Thus, prima facie the services received by the appellants are clas .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ical Testing and Analysis" because nothing belonging to appellants was subjected to technical testing and analysis. - unable to locate any statutory or constitutional provisions which support the notion that in case of revenue neutrality the liability to tax abates. Further whether there has been wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts on the part of appellants is to be determined with reference to the facts and circumstances of the case which requires detailed analysis which can be taken u .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ainst Order-in-Original No.73/Commissioner/Noida/2013-14, dated 27.03.2014 in terms of which the service tax demand of ₹ 6 ,54,64,554 /- has been confirmed for the period October, 2007 to March, 2011 (along with interest and penalties) under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) under reverse charge mechanism. The facts of the case are that the appellants were purchasing services from M/s. ConvasM America Inc., USA (CAI). As per the contract, (service provider agreement) entered .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s for development of software on a non-exclusive basis in USA and which appointment CAI has accepted. (iv) Appellants will be entering into contracts with the customers based in USA for development/modification of software and other related services to the customers based in USA. (v) CAI in certain cases may enter into contracts in its own name with the customers based in USA while rendering the agreed services to the appellants. (vi) At all times, CAI will be the service provider to the appella .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lf of the appellants and therefore it was a case of import of service classified under BAS and therefore the appellants were required to pay the impugned service tax under reverse charge mechanism in terms of Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Ld. counsel for the appellants strenuously argued that the services received by them from CAI were not BAS but were "Technical Testing and Analysis" service and therefore the demand was not sustainable. He further argued that it was not a case .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e other hand argued that the services received are clearly covered under the definition of Business Auxiliary Service. 3. We have considered the contentions of the appellants. In the present case, it is seen that CAI were providing the services to the customers of the appellants as per the agreement between CAI and the appellants and the payment for the same was made by the appellants to CAI. Thus, CAI was engaged in providing services in relation to provision of service on behalf of client whic .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t the sub-contractors are rendering services indirectly to M/s. NTPC and that these sub-contractors are receiving payments indirectly from M/s. NTPC. The activities undertaken by the sub-contractors, in our considered opinion is only site formation services. These services have been rendered to the main contractors NBCC who are responsible to M/s. NTPC. If at all there is any doubt it could be whether the services rendered by NBCC could be treated as business auxiliary services and not the servi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version