TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1302X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 17.03.2009 - Held that:- The appellant was not liable to pay any service tax, as a recipient of taxable service under reverse charge mechanism, in terms of Section 66A of the Act, which was inserted in the statute book only with effect from 18.04.2006. By referring to the statutory amendments and various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the CBEC vide Circular No. 276/8/2009-CX., 8A dated 26.09.2011 has clarified that service tax liability on any taxable service provided by a non-resident or a person located outside India, to a recipient in India, would arise w.e.f. 18.04.2006, i.e. the date of enactment of Section 66A of the Act. Non-submission of break-up of amount from the total service tax liability cannot be a defensible ground to de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d show-cause notice dated 03.04.2009, seeking for confirmation of service tax demand of ₹ 2,75,31,187/-. Another show-cause notice dated 17.03.2009 was also issued to the appellant, seeking for recovery of service tax amount of ₹ 41,56,408/-, which attributable to reimbursement of expenses made to the overseas entity in respect of various charges towards telephone, central reservation, mobile phone etc., for the period April' 2006 to December' 2006. Both the show-cause notices were adjudicated vide the impugned order dated 21.03.2014. 2.1 With regard to show-cause notice dated 03.04.2009, upon considering the submissions of the appellant that it is not contesting the proposed demand of service tax and interest amount, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (29) STR 9 (Del.). 4. On the other hand, learned D.R. appearing for Revenue reiterated the findings recorded in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the records. 6. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the learned Commissioner of Service Tax has not discussed the merits of the case in respect of the demand proposed for recovery under the show-cause notice dated 03.04.2009. He has held that the noticee / appellant had not disputed such demand and deposited the amount of service tax along with interest. Since the appellant specifically did not contest the demand as per the show-cause notice dated 03.04.2009 and accepted its liability, we are of the view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n-resident or a person located outside India, to a recipient in India, would arise w.e.f. 18.04.2006, i.e. the date of enactment of Section 66A of the Act. Non-submission of break-up of amount from the total service tax liability cannot be a defensible ground to demand service tax, for which no sanctity was provided in the statute. 6.2 As regards the service tax demand confirmed for the period from 18.04.2006 to December 2006, the same was in context with reimbursement of expenses made by the appellant to its over-seas clients in respect of various charges incurred by the latter. The issue, as to whether, reimbursement of expenses should form the part of value of taxable service for computation of service tax liability, is no more res in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
