TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 557X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... various vendors located outside India. Extended period of limitation - Held that: - there is no sustainable reason to uphold the demand for extended period in absence of ingredients like fraud, suppression or willful statement with intention to evade tax. Such elements are missing in the present case - demand only for normal period upheld. Appeal allowed in part. - S.T. Appeal No.242 of 2012 - A/58265/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 29-11-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Sh. Bipin Garg, Advocate for the appellant Dr. Neha Garg, DR for the Respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran The appeal is against order dated 18/11/2011 of Commissioner (Appeals) of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ge basis. He submitted that the service rendered to their main client onsite outside India is not subjected to service tax and the Revenue accepted such assertion. However, with reference to support for such services received from various vendors to provide onsite service, the present proceedings have been initiated. He submitted that overall all the services are with reference to onsite activity outside India and cannot be subjected to tax on reverse charge basis as no service is received by the appellant in India. 3. Further, contesting the impugned order on limitation, ld. Counsel submitted that whole proceedings were invoking extended period. The issue involved is substantially relating to interpretation of a new concept of reverse c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India -2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom). As such, when the appellant benefited from services rendered by the foreign based vendors and did pay for such services, the considerations are correctly taxed on the reverse charge basis in terms of Section 66 A of the Act. Regarding extended period, she supported the findings recorded by the Original Authority and submitted that the appellants should have deposited the tax when they have paid huge consideration for the foreign service providers and received services. 5. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 6. Regarding the issue on merit, we note that admittedly the appellants engaged various vendors as service providers, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) held that there is no provision to tax such recipient of service prior to introduction of Section 66A w.e.f. 18.04.2006. The provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(4) has no application for such tax liability. It is also to be noted that the appellant would have been eligible for cenvat credit in case of payment of such tax on reverse charge basis. 8. Keeping these facts in view, we are of the opinion that there is no sustainable reason to uphold the demand for extended period in absence of ingredients like fraud, suppression or willful statement with intention to evade tax. Such elements are missing in the present case. Accordingly, while upholding the demand on merit, we find that the liability shall be restricted to the normal period covered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
