TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 537X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant have accepted its levy after 01.03.2008 i.e. the period after the issue of Import of Services Rules and we, therefore, do not find any force of law for confirmation of demand under the said category for the period prior to 01.03.2008. Penalty - Held that:- Since there was no intention to evade duty for the reason that under Reverse Charge Mechanism the appellants are entitled for credit of service tax paid under Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 - penalty not warranted. Appeal allowed in part. - Appeal No. ST/59755/2013-CU[DB] - Final Order No. 71339/2018 - Dated:- 5-7-2018 - Hon ble Smt. Archana Wadhwa, Member ( Judicial ) And Hon ble Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member ( Technical ) Shri S.S. Gupta, Chartered Accountant Ms Santosh Khandelwal, Representative for Appellant Shri Pawan Kumar Singh, Supdt (AR), for Respondent ORDER Per : Anil G. Shakkarwar The present appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 08/Commissioner/Noida/2013-14 dated 17/06/2013 passed by Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise Service Tax (Appeals), Noida. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants were providing services under the category of Broadcast ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Leitch ) Maintenance, repair and technical support in respect of equipments -do- 8. M/s Omnibus Systems Limited, Stanford House, Stanford-on-Soar, Loughborough, England (here-in- after referred to as Omnibus ) Maintenance, repair and technical support in respect of equipments/software -do- 9. M/s. VIZRT Limited, Shefayim Commercial Centre, P. O. No. 10, Shefayim, Israel (here-in-after referred to as Vizrt ) Maintenance, repair and technical support -do- 10. M/s. Snell Wilcox Limited, Southleigh Park House, Eastleigh Road, Havant, Hants, U. K. (here- in-after referred to as Snell ) Maintenance, repair and technical support -do- 11. M/s. IRDETO Access B.V., Netherlands (here- in-after referred to as IRDETO ) Maintenance, repair and technical support -do- 12. Mr. Shoaib Malik, a Cricket Celebrity, Pakist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Service and (v) ₹ 85,721/- (Rs.83,224/- Service Tax, ₹ 1,664/- Primary Education Cess and ₹ 832/- Higher and Secondary Education Cess) towards Promoting a Brand of Goods, Services, business Entity etc. Service should not be demanded from them under the proviso to Section 73 of the said Act by invoking extended period as provided therein. (b) Interest, as applicable during the relevant period on the amount of Service Tax not paid as per para (a) above, should not be charged and recovered from them under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. (c) Penalty should not be imposed under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. On contest, the issue was adjudicated through the impugned Order-in-Original, wherein the Original Authority has confirmed the entire demand under extended period and imposed equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, appellant is before this Tribunal. 4. Heard Shri S.S. Gupta, learned Chartered Accountant, Consultant, for appellant, his submissions are as follows:- a) A demand of ₹ 4,49,41,169/- under Reverse Charge was confirmed for the period from May, 2006 to March, 2011, in respect of services o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eived from Harris, Leitch, Omnibus, VIZRT, Snell and IRDETO and submitted that the said services were not taxable under Reverse Charge Mechanism before 01.03.2008 and became taxable only w.e.f. 01.03.2008 only when Import of Service Rules were amended. He has further accepted that w.e.f. 01.03.2008 the said services are taxable and for the period after 01.03.2008 he does not dispute the same. e) He has further submitted that original authority has confirmed a demand of Service Tax of ₹ 85,721/- under the category of Promoting brand of goods, services, business, entity etc. on the event of sport person Shoaib Malik appearing in a T.V. Program during the period from February, 2011 to March, 2011 and submitted that appearing on T.V. in talk show is not for promotion of any brand and the said confirmation of demand is not sustainable. 5. Heard the learned A.R. for revenue, who has supported the impugned Order-in-Original. 6. Having considered the rival contentions and on perusal of records and the case law cited, we find that the show cause notice was issued on 24.10.2011 by invoking the extended period and a demand of ₹ 4,49,41,169/- + ₹ 32,822/- was confirm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
