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

M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad

2017 (11) TMI 774 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Reverse charge mechanism - receipt of services - in course of raising fund ECB and FCCB appellant are receiving services of various service provider based outside country like Merchant Bankers, Lead Manager, Advisors, Financial Advisors, Principle Agent, Legal Advisors, Management Consultant, Underwriters etc. - Revenue neutrality - Held that: - Ld. Commissioner did not deal with the issue of Revenue neutrality in detail and the same was rejected on the ground that there is suppression of facts, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

erest of justice, it is desirable to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. - Appeal allowed by way of remand. - Appeal No. ST/07/12 - Dated:- 26-10-2017 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. Vinay Jain, C.A. for the Appellants Ms. P.V. Shekhar, Joint Commissioner(A.R.) and Shri. M.P. Damle, Asstt. Commisioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that appellant M/s. Videocon industries Ltd are receiving service .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ustries Limited and M/s. Videocon International Ltd (now merged with M/s. Videocon Industries Limited) entered into following agreement with different organizations/firms. (1) Facility Agreement dated 27-6-2006 with ICICI Bank Ltd, Singapore Branch, in connection with US$ 36 Milliion Credit Facility, (2) Facility Agreement dated 21-9-2006 with ICICI Bank Limited, Singapore Branch, in connection with US $ 60 Million Credit Facility, (3) Subscription Agreement dated 27-1-2006 with DBS Bank Ltd, M/ .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r terms loan. As per the above agreements in connection with raising funds through ECB and FCCB appellant are recipient of the services from person of outside India. Accordingly, they were required to comply with the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and rules made thereunder for discharging the service tax. However they have not complied with these provisions nor paid service tax. Accordingly, the show cause notice issued demanding service tax, which was culminated into adjudication order wherein .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ty which were not considered properly, therefore order suffers from principle of natural justice. He submits that demand is not sustainable on the following counts. (a) Service was provided and received outside India therefore Aurangabad Commissionerate has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the show cause notice. (b) The show cause notice does not indicate how the activity undertaken by the foreign companies which sought to be taxed falls under the definition of banking and finance service, manageme .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

n collaborator is not covered under the banking and other financial service. The service provider have business establishment in India therefore no service tax can be demanded from the appellant. (g) Even though if the service tax is payable, the same is available as Cenvat credit therefore entire exercise is revenue neutral. (h) Computation of tax liability is incorrect on the ground that cum tax value was not considered. (i) Extended period of demand is not invokable, hence the demand is time .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(d) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Special Steel Ltd[2015(329)ELT 449(Tri. Mumbai)] (e) Rallies (India) ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur[2016-TIOL-1699-CESTAT-MUM] (f) M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central excise, Mumbai-V[Final Order NO. A/86741-86742/17/EB dated 21-3-2017. 4. On the other hand, Ms. P.V. Shekhar, Ld. Joint Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. Ld. A.R. submits that .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I[2016-TIOL-1004-CESTAT-MUM] (c) Tata Steel Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I[2016(41)S.T.R. 689(Tri. Mumbai)] (d) Axis Bank Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I[2015(40)S.T.R. 993(Tri. Mumbai)] (e) Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. ITC Ltd [2014(36)S.TR. 481(Del.)] She further submits that submission regarding revenue neutrality is not acceptable for the reason that liability to pay service tax is independent of availability of Cenvat .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ce this is not the case of Revenue neutrality. She further submits that demand of extended period is legal and correct for the reason that appellant had neither taken registration nor filing any ST 3 returns therefore it is clear case of suppression of facts hence demand for extended period was rightly invoked. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 6. We find that before addressing the issue on merit, appeal can be disposed of on the issue of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

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


|| 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