TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 919X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Is in essence no substantial change in the law. We are of the view that Section 65 B (44) read with the relevant Explanations are peremateria to the Section 66A (2) read with Explanation - Consequently, the finding of the Tribunal needs no modification even for the period after 01.07.2012. Hence, there is no justification to demand Service Tax on the amounts paid by the appellant to their branch office towards reimbursement of their expenses. The Commissioner has failed to discuss the issue in the light of the provisions, which have been included in the statute w.e.f. 01.07.2012. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeal No. ST/52357/2015-CU [DB] - ST/A/52273/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 13-6-2018 - MR. V. PADMA ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sented by Shri Amresh Jain, ld. D.R. 3. The ld. Advocate brought to our notice that an identical issue for the same appellant for the period prior to 01.07.2012 had already come up before the Tribunal. He specifically pointed out that the assessment upto 30.06.2012 was made under the old provisions of the Finance Act, 1994, which came to be changed w.e.f. 01.07.2012. From that date, the levy of Service Tax was changed to the negative list basis. He pointed out that the present demand has been raised for the period after the introduction of the negative list and the show cause notice has cited the provisions, which were incorporated in the statute after 01.07.2012. But the Adjudicating authority has discussed the issue only with reference ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovisions of 66A (prevalent prior to 01.07.2012) cannot be considered as pari-materia to the new provisions of Section 65 B (44) read with the two Explanations. He argued that the new provisions have the effect of considering the establishments of a person in India, as well as abroad to be distinct persons. Accordingly, he submitted that after the new provisions are introduced, the amounts paid by the appellant to their branch offices are to be considered for levy of Service Tax, by considering the two establishments as distinct legal persons. 8. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. 9. The issue in dispute in the present case is regarding tax liability of the appellant, on revers ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of distinct persons. Explanation 4 - A person carrying on a business through a branch or agency or representational office in any territory shall be treated as having an establishment in that country. 10. We note that the identical issue in respect of the appellant for the period prior to 01.07.2012 was considered and decided by the Tribunal in the Final Order No. 50314-50315/2018 dated 12.01.2018. on a perusal of the said order, we find that the Tribunal has considered the issue with reference to the provisions of Section 66A (2) read with the Explanation I, which was on the statute book prior to 01.07.2012. The Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te of local VAT/GST abroad to avoid service tax payment in India by showing the services to have been availed abroad. By referring to the above decision, the Tribunal came to the following conclusion:- 8. The ratio of the above decision and also the close reading of the proviso to Section 66 A alongwith explanation therein is make it clear that the legal fiction of considering a branch of an assessee as a separate establishment is not to tax a service rendered to its head office. Further, here there is no such service also has been identified with supporting evidence. 9. We find that the ratio adopted by the Tribunal in examining the application of the said proviso is appropriate to the facts of the present case and accord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
