9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (2) TMI 869X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gh, DR ORDER Per S K Mohanty The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 23.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), upholding rejection of refund claim of Rs. 6,36,450/-in the adjudication order dated 23.01.2014. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is registered with Service Tax Department for providing taxable service namely, "Business Auxiliary Ser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was adjudicated vide order dated 23.01.2004, wherein refund of Rs. 7,76,818/- was allowed and the balance claimed amount of Rs. 6,34,450/- was rejected on the ground of non-submission of documentary evidences such as, Bank Realisation Certificates (BRC). In appeal, the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order has upheld rejection of the refund claim. Hence, this present appeal before thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39; rendered from an overseas agent and received by the party during the period from 01.01.2005 to 17.04.2006 were not taxable services during the relevant period and hence there was no service tax liability on the party under reverse charge mechanism against the payments of commission paid by the party for such services. The service tax liability under Section 66A on reverse charge basis became e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom its overseas clients during the period from 01.01.2005 to 17.04.2006, on which no service tax was payable under Reverse Charge Mechanism, since the concept of fixing the liability for payment of tax by the service receiver was inserted in Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 18.04.2006. During the period of receipt of service from the overseas clients, since the appellant was not statut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
