9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (7) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rvice Tax amounting to Rs. 2,02,66,241/- under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest under section 75 of the Act. The impugned order has further confirmed penalty at the rate of 2% of service tax per month not paid or penalty of Rs. 200/- for everyday whichever is higher under section 76 of the Act, penalty of Rs. 10,000/- or Rs. 200/- for everyday during which the failure continues whichever is higher under section 77 of the Act. 2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s.Coperion Ideal Pvt.Ltd. has entered into an agreement with M/s.Coperion Warner Pfleiderer & Gmbh Co. KG Germany and M/s. Coperion Waeschle Gmbh & Co. KG Germany wherein it provides information to the foreign parties required to understand the domestic m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts duties as per agreement. (iv) that the appellant have suppressed facts that they acted as commission agent for the foreign parties by not taking service tax registration as required under the Act. (v) the show cause notice further placed reliance on the stay order of Delhi Tribunal in the case of M/s.Microsoft Corp. (I) Pvt.Ltd. v. CST, Delhi [2009 (15) STR 680 which has been upheld by Hon'ble Delhi High Court reported in 2009 (16) STR 545 (Del.). 5. The said show cause notice culminated into the impugned order passed by the ld.Commissioner, which is under challenge before this Tribunal. 6. At the outset, ld.Advocate for the appellant submitted that the issue is no more res integra in view of the decision of Tribunal in the case of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ities or from whom various details and information were collected were not to be considered as recipient of service provided by the appellant/assessee. In Airbus Group India Pvt. Ltd. v. CST, Delhi reported in 2016-TIOL-2312-CESTAT-DEL. = 2016 (45) S.T.R. 120 (Tri.-Del.), the Tribunal after referring to the decisions in Paul Merchants Ltd. (supra), Microsoft Corporation (I) (P) Ltd. v. CST, New Delhi reported in 2014 (36) S.T.R. 766 (Tri.-Del.) and Gap International Sourcing India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014-TIOL-465-CESTAT-DEL. = 2015 (37) S.T.R. 757 (Tribunal) held that what constitutes export of service is to be determined strictly in accordance with the Export of Service Rules, 2005. It is the person who requested for the said service an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said insertion clearly states that it is for removal of doubts. Accordingly, in the absence of any other statutory formula to arrive at the quantum of Cenvat credit to be reversed on common input services, we find no impropriatory in the decision of the Original Authority in this regard. Regarding the contention of the Revenue that the appellant/assessee should not be allowed to utilize more than 20% of the total duty liability we note that there is no legal backing for such assertion. Further, the proposal made in the show cause notice that the reversal of credit should be on the basis of proportion between value of traded goods and service income earned by the appellant/assessee is not supported by any legal provisions. Now the Revenu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
