Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Short Notes

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (4) TMI 244

er” used in Section 73 (1) & 73 (2) of Finance Act, 1994 cannot be read to be the same officer. It suffices if a Central Excise Officer is vested with such powers becomes “The Central Excise Officer” for the purposes of the Sections referred above. It is not the case of the appellants that the ADG, DGCEI issued the SCN and the Commissioner of Central Excise who adjudicated the case is not Central Excise Officers. In bureaucracy, officers keep on changing due to transfers, etc. If one considers the proposition that the same officer who has issued the SCN should adjudicate the case leads to an impracticable situation. - Reverse charge mechanism - services availed from a provider located outside India - Liability of service tax - Held tha .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

Harish, Joint Commissioner, AR For the Respondent ORDER Per: P. ANJANI KUMAR The appellants, M/s EDS Technologies Pvt. Ltd. are a private limited company engaged in the business of trading of computer softwares and hardwares. DGCEI on the basis of intelligence collected and investigation conducted issued a SCN dated 07.05.2007 alleging that the appellants were not paying appropriate Service Tax on Management Consultant Services received by them form the overseas providers and on Business Auxiliary Services provided by them in India. The SCN was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vide Order No. 58/2008 dated 30.11.2008. The appellants are in appeal against the order. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

8377; 5,51,33,355/-. He further submitted that CBEC vide Circular No. 276/8/2009-CX-8A dated 26.09.2011, it was clarified that by the Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism is liable to be paid w.e.f. 18.04.2006 only. Though, an amount of ₹ 1,15,21,027/- was paid on 30.05.2006, the services were received before 31.03.2006 as can be seen from the Debit Note at Page no. 110 to 117 of Appeal Memorandum. Therefore, even if the amounts received paid after the date, the services that were received only after 18.04.2006 are liable for payment of Service Tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism . He relied upon the following decisions: Indian National Shipowners Association v. UOI, 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom) approved by Hon ble Supreme Court in 20 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

appellant had received a commission of ₹ 42,95,475/- in respect of services rendered to IBM, USA, the amount was paid by IBM, India in INR. As the service recipient is abroad, the same needs to be treated as export of services. The Learned Counsel, however, accepted the duty liability for the period 19.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 and stated that the same has been paid along with interest. 2.5. He further submitted that commission received by the appellants is to be treated as inclusive of Service Tax in view of the following decisions: CCE v. Maruthi Udyog Ltd., 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC). Srichakra Tyres Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1999 (108) ELT 361 (LB). CCE v. T.V.S. Srichakra Ltd., 2002 (142) ELT A279 (SC). 2.6. Lastly, he submitte .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

ise Officer is vested with such powers becomes The Central Excise Officer for the purposes of the Sections referred above. It is not the case of the appellants that the ADG, DGCEI issued the SCN and the Commissioner of Central Excise who adjudicated the case is not Central Excise Officers. In bureaucracy, officers keep on changing due to transfers, etc. If one considers the proposition that the same officer who has issued the SCN should adjudicate the case leads to an impracticable situation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that as rightly held by the Hon ble Allahabad High Court (supra), there is no infirmity in the issue. Moreover, we find that most of the cases submitted by the appellants are under the realm of Income Tax and therefore, .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

he Service Tax payable or paid by them for the period 09.07.2004 to 31.03.2007. We find that for this reason issue needs to go back to the adjudicating authority to compute the cum-duty Service Tax for the period 09.07.2004 to 31.03.2007. We find that the appellants have not demonstrated their bonafides vis-à-vis invocation of extended period. It is not the case of the appellants that they have kept the Department informed of all their activities and made a mention of the same in the CT-3 Returns. In the absence of the same, the Department would have no way to find out the taxable services rendered by the appellants and the remuneration received. Therefore, we find that extended period is squarely invokable in the case. However, we f .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||