9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... engaged consultants for their Wind Energy Division and had not registered themselves for the purpose of payment of service tax under GTA service or Consulting Engineering Service, the officers of DGCEI collected details under summons proceedings. It was noticed that the appellant had engaged transporters for transporting their goods from their factory to the site and from the port of import to the site. Further, that they had taken over the Wind Energy Division from NEPC India Ltd. vide Slump Sale Agreement dated 16.1.2006. As per Slump Sale Agreement effective from 16.1.2006, the freight charges involved from January 2006 to April 2006 as per the details furnished by NEPC vide letter dated 2.4.2007 is payable by the appellant. Though the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al before Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order impugned herein upheld the same. Hence this appeal. 2. The ld. counsel Shri V.S. Manoj submitted that as per the Slump Sale Agreement, the entire assets and assumed liabilities are taken over by the appellant. Merely because the appellant has undertaken to pay up the liability to the creditors / customers who have provided the services, it cannot be said that the appellant is obliged to discharge the service tax liabilities also. There is no provision in Slump Sale Agreement to pay up the service tax liability. Therefore, the appellant has no obligation to discharge such liability. Further, that the service tax liability will arise only when such service is received by the service recipient. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tax. That the invocation of extended period therefore is incorrect. 4. The ld. AR Shri B. Balamurugan supported the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the appellant has made the payments under freight charges and consulting engineering service to the concerned persons / clients as per the Slump Sale Agreement. When the appellant has made the payment, they are also liable to discharge the service tax on such payment. Both these services attract service tax under reverse charge mechanism. As per Slump Sale Agreement, the appellant has taken up the liabilities of NEPC, even though the services were availed by NEPC. Then the liability to pay service tax is upon the appellant. 5. On the issue of limitation, ld. AR submitted tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant pursuant to the Slump Sale Agreement. It is also seen that there is no specific stipulation in the agreement with regard to the burden to discharge the service tax liability. Further, in all the letters issued by the appellant to the department, they have given the details of the payments made and also clarified that they are making the payments in accordance with Slump Sale Agreement. Taking note of these facts, we are of the view that the appellant cannot be saddled with the guilt of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of service ax. Therefore, the show cause notice issued invoking the extended period, in our view, cannot sustain and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. Thus, the appellant succeeds on the g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
