Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Karvy Investor Services Ltd. Versus The Commissioner C.C.E & ST, Hyderabad-II

2016 (8) TMI 718 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

Claim of refund of service tax on bad debts recovered - period of limitation - The period being prior to 15-03-2005 was governed by Notification No.21/2003-ST dated 20-11-2003 exempting the taxable services from the levy of service tax in respect of which payments were received in convertible foreign exchange. That the payment having received from Onconova, in convertible foreign exchange, the services provided by appellant was not liable to service tax. The appellants then filed refund claim on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

IGH COURT] has taken a similar view in a a similar set of facts. Following the proposition laid by the Hon'ble High Courts of Kerala and Karnataka, when there is no levy in accordance with the provisions of service tax law the claim for refund cannot be denied on the ground of limitation in terms of Section 11(B) of Central Excise Act. - Refund allowed. - Appeal No.ST/2690 & ST/2672/2012 - ORDER No. A/30169-30170/2016 - Dated:- 9-2-2016 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member(Judicial). Shri Harish Bindumad .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

off in the books of account of the appellant. Subsequently, on 15-09-2006, the appellants received the amount of USD 30,000/- as consideration for services and this was recorded in their books as bad debts recovered @ ₹ 14,64,367/-. A service tax audit was conducted for the period February, 2007 to January, 2008 and the officers directed the appellants to pay service tax on the bad debts recovered from M/s Onconova. Accordingly the appellants paid service tax along with interest on 28-02-2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

services provided by appellant was not liable to service tax. The appellants then filed refund claim on 15-10-2009 in the prescribed Form-R for refund of the Service Tax amount erroneously paid by the appellants. A show cause notice dated 13-7-2010 was issued to them proposing to reject the refund claim on the ground that the claim being time barred. The appellants defended the show cause notice contending that the subject refund claim is not covered by limitation clause envisaged in Section 11( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ns were initiated by DGCEI, alleging that appellant was indulging in evasion of service tax, alleging that appellant failed to pay service tax on the amount of FCIR of USD 30,000/-(Rs.14,64,368/-) received form Onconova Inc. USA and accounted in their books as recovery of bad debts. During the investigation itself, the appellants had paid service tax of ₹ 1,61,086/- and interest amount of ₹ 20,999/-, which is the subject matter of refund claim stated above. Pursuant to investigation, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

services, and that the service tax was neither charged nor collected from Onconova Inc. USA. After adjudication, the original authority confirmed the demand of service tax and interest and imposed equal amount of penalty u/s 78 with an option of reducing penalty of 25% if paid within 30 days from the date of communication of order. The Original authority did not impose penalty u/s 76 of Finance Act. The appellants filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). Both the above appeals filed by .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

by appellants to them. It is the case of appellant that they had provided services to M/s Onconova Inc. USA, an overseas company in the year 2002 -2003. They did not receive the payment at that time and the amount was written off in their books of accounts. Later the payment was received in FCIR in the year 2006 and the same was disclosed in their accounts as bad debts recovered .The Notification No.6/99-ST dated 09-04-1999 exempts from payment of service tax when the consideration for taxabl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in FCIR during the intervening period between 01-03-2003 and 20-11-2003 would be exigible to Service tax. The CBEC by Circular No. 56/5/2003- ST dated 25-04-2003 has clarified that service tax is destination based consumption tax and it is not applicable on export of services. Export of services would continue to remain tax free even after withdrawal of Notification 6/1999 dated 09-04-1999. This clarification issued by the circular would go to show that the services provided by appellants to M/s .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

emand of service tax on the ground that exemption notification No.6/99-ST was withdrawn in March, 2003 and identical exemption was reintroduced only in November, 2003. That CBEC has held export of services to be tax free notwithstanding the Notifications. In the case in hand, there is no dispute the service were exported and also that amount was received in convertible foreign exchange. The CBEC circular dated 25-04-2003 has clarified that export of services would continue to remain tax free ev .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

l No.2690/2012. The appellants deposited the service tax of ₹ 1,61,086/- along with interest of ₹ 20,999/- on 28-02-2008 on the consideration received from M/s Onconova Inc. USA The appellants have filed the refund claim contending that no service tax is payable by them for the export of services made during the period 2002-2003. The refund claim was rejected on the ground of being time bar in terms of sec. 11(B) of Central Excise Act, 1944. According to the department, the payments .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ly under pressure from the department. To fortify his arguements the learned counsel relied upon the judgment laid by Honble High Court of Kerala in M/s Geojit BNP Paribas Financial Services Ltd. Vs CCE CST Kochi 2015-VIL-279-KER-ST. The Hon'ble Court observed as under: The learned counsel for the department, relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And others Vs. Union of India and others (1997) (5) SCC 536)-1996-VIL-01-SC-CE would argue that eve .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version