2004 (8) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pellant under the category of "Consulting Engineer". It is contended on behalf of the appellant that M/s. CIBA Geigy Limited being a manufacturer is not an engineering firm and would not fall under the definition of 'Taxable Service and Consulting Engineer'. On due enquiry, the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane, confirmed the demand of Service Tax of Rs. 29,15,488/- under Section 73 of The Finance Act, 1994. Interest is also ordered to be recovered. A sum of Rs. 100/- per day is imposed towards penalty from the date the Service Tax was liable to be paid. The Commissioner (Appeals) did not find any grounds to interfere with the Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise, Thane. Hence this appeal. 2. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... transfer of technology and know-how, it is apparent and if its services covered then the appellants herein are the recipient of such services, which are provided by M/s. Ciba Geigy Ltd., Switzerland or their authorized representatives in India. They were required to discharge that obligation and liability. The appellants cannot be fastend with the said tax liability since they are being authorized representative of M/s. Ciba Geigy Ltd., Switzerland, is not forthcoming from the records. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the order dated 27-8-2003 asking the appellants to discharge the tax liability and imposing penalty on them needs to be set aside. 4. Since Ciba Geigy Ltd., Switzerland, are also manufacturers of the same goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... riod prior to such an amendment. 7. Since there was no liability on the appellants, who approached the Department as regards service tax consequent to the agreement, there can be no failure on the part of the appellants in having not filed Service Tax Returns. 8. In view of the fact that the second proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Service Tax was enacted with effect from 28-2-1999, therefore, even there is a liability on the part of the appellants to have discharged the obligations under the Service Tax Law for the period prior to 28-12-1999, the appellants cannot be found to be having any intention of misleading the Department and therefore the charges of suppression with an intention to evade payment of tax cannot be invoked. 9. Since no ta .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X