TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1730X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that necessary details are contained in the agreements and he was not in a position to submit the agreements readily - thus, for determination of the liability of service tax of the appellant vis-à-vis the contracts and the actual nature of the work undertaken by the appellants so as to evaluate whether they can be termed as export of services. Visa Services - Circular No.137/06/2011-ST dated 20.4.2001 issued by CBEC vide File No.332/2011/2010-TRU - Held that:- The services rendered by the appellants insofar as visa services are concerned are squarely covered by the clarification issued by CBEC vide the Circular - the demand as far as visa services rendered by the appellants are concerned does not sustain and is liable to be set aside. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ary Service as per Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The taxable service being under Section 65(105)(226) vide show-cause notice dated 7.8.2006 was issued to the appellants demanding service tax of ₹ 1,97,39,635/- along with Education Cess of ₹ 1,13,720/-. The show-cause notice was confirmed by the Order-in-Original dated 18.1.2008 wherein the Commissioner confirmed the demand of ₹ 1,81,72,335/- and Education cess of ₹ 1,03,194/- along with interest and penalties. Another show-cause notice dated 14.7.2008 was issued seeking to increase the penalty under Section 76 of Finance Act, 1994 from ₹ 100/- per day to ₹ 200/- per day and the same was confirmed vide Order-in Original No.25/2008 dated 14.10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der any of the taxable services under Section 65 (105) of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence service tax is not attracted. 2.2 He further submitted that the Circular was followed by the Hon ble Tribunal in the following cases: Green Channel Travel Services P. Ltd. vs. Commissioner, ST, Ahmedabad: 2012 (26) STR 527 Good Wind Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad: 2013 (31) STR 598 VFS Global Services Pvt. Ltd.: 2013 (30) STR 411 (Tri.Mum.), wherein it was held that on perusal of the said Circular, we find that the appellants are providing the services mentioned in the CBEC Circular, therefore, the activity undertaken by the appellants are not taxable under Section 65 (105) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.3 With reference to the cargo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ake place even when all the relevant activities take place in India so long as the benefits of the services accrue outside India. Board further clarifies that for Rule 3(1)(iii), the relevant factor is the location of the service receiver and not the place of performance. The same principle was enunciated by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of J.B. Boda Co. (P) Ltd.: 1997 (223) ITR 271 (SC). 2.4 The learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that having issued a second show-cause notice on 14.7.2008, the learned Commissioner has sought to increase the penalty from ₹ 100/- per day to ₹ 200/- per day quoting that there was a mistake on the face of the original order No.4/2008 dated 18.1.2008. The learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ility of service tax of the appellant vis- -vis the contracts and the actual nature of the work undertaken by the appellants so as to evaluate whether they can be termed as export of services. 4.2 Coming to the subsequent issuance of show-cause notice seeking to increase the quantum of penalty under Section 76 from ₹ 100/- per day to ₹ 200/- per day, we find that the learned Commissioner has clearly erred in taking a step which amounts to review of his own order. The Department was well within its rights to file an appeal before the appropriate form if it was felt that there was an error in the order. Therefore, we find that the subsequent order No.25/2008 being issued without authority of law is liable to be set aside. We ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
