9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts (who did not have any offices in India). The period involved is from October 2007 to August 2011. The appellant was liable to pay Service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Services under the reverse charge mechanism u/s. 66 (A) of the Finance Act, 1994, though the services for Commission Agents, when used in respect of exported products were exempt from payment of service tax by virtue of Notification No. 41/2007 dated 06.10.2007 as amended by Notification No. 12/2008 dated 01.04.2008 and subsequently vide Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009. The appellant not having primarily fulfilled the procedural requirement of informing the department in form EXP-I before claiming the exemption, on being pointed out in the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of misstatement or suppression of facts or contraventions of any of the provisions of the Act or of the rules made thereunder with an intention to evade payment of service tax. 4. She further submits that the entire dispute is revenue neutral, since the appellant would in any case be entitled to avail credit of the entire service tax amount paid by them and that there was no occasion to invoke extended period of limitation. In support of her submissions, the ld. counsel relied on the following decisions:- i. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vapi-2005 (192) ELT 852 (Tri. Mum.) ii. CST, Bangalore Vs. Master Kleen-2012 (25) STR 439 (Kar.) iii. CCE Vs. First Flight Courier Ltd.-2011 (22) STR 622 ( P & H) iv. CCE, Kochi Vs. Or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion notification and hence, no service tax whatsoever was payable, need not be examined. 8. It is an undisputed position that the entire amount of service tax, paid under the reverse charge mechanism in respect of commission agent service was immediately available to the appellant as Cenvat credit. Given this undisputed fact, the contention of the appellant that there was no intention to evade payment of duty has considerable force. In the appellants own case (when it was known as Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd.) reported at 2005 (192) ELT 852 (Tri-Mum), the Tribunal has already held that where credit is available to another unit of the same company, the situation was revenue neutral and the allegation of suppression with an intention to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
