TMI Blog2020 (4) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess only in recent times. Furthermore, as deemed a provider of service , obliged to discharge the tax liability, the appellant was entitled to avail of credit under CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Motive for suppression, misdeclaration or evasion of tax is, thus, not patent. Nor do we find any substance in the impugned order or show cause notice to conclude otherwise. In these circumstances, the recovery of tax on the charges paid to M/s Eversheds LLP in notices that extended beyond the normal period of limitation stands barred. Demand of service tax confirmed for the Normal Period - Adjudicating authority directed to separate the wheat from the chaff. Renting of immovable services - Held that:- The appellant had discharged liability on rental of immovable property, along with interest, before issue of show cause notice. There are no evidence of any of the ingredients that could lead to invoking of the extended period in section 73 of Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the provisions of section 73 (3) of Finance Act, 1994 precludes further proceedings. The imposition of penalty of ₹ 7,41,600 and of ₹ 40,375 fails to find sustenance in law. Appeal disposed off. - SER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounsel that, notwithstanding the tax of ₹ 7,41,600, with interest of ₹ 21,943, having been paid on 5th July 2013 as provider of service taxable under section 65(105)(zzzz) of Finance Act, 1994 on the renting of their turbine assembly unit at Kolhapur to M/s Sinovel Wind Group Co Ltd, China between August 2013 and October 2013, the recovery was not only confirmed but also included for computation of penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 in disposal of the first notice. It was also informed that tax of ₹ 40,375 on charges paid for environment related activities arising from agreement with M/s Agri-Waste Technology was sought for recovery in the same proceeding. 5. Drawing attention to the definition of taxable service, as it evolved, in section 65(105)(zzzzm) of Finance Act, 1994, it was contended on behalf of the appellants that legal firms do not, in the eyes of law, lie within the ambit of description as business entity essential to being provider of the taxable service and that appearance before any court, tribunal or authority stood excluded within the said provision itself. It was also contended that notification no. 45/2011-ST dated 12 th Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... prescribed. (iii) Such service should be provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory . The expression taxable territory has been defined under Section 65B(52) to mean the territory to which the provisions of this Chapter apply. Section 64(1) of the FA states that Chapter V extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. 19. A collective reading of Section 66B read with Section 64(1) and Section 65B(52) makes it plain that Service Tax is leviable only on services provided or agreed to be provided in the taxable territory i.e. the whole of India except Jammu and Kashmir. Such service alone is taxable service which is defined under Section 65B(51) to mean that any service on which Service Tax is leviable under Section 66B. The net result is that services rendered outside the taxable territory of India would not be a taxable service for the purposes of the FA. This is of utmost significance since the entire Chapter V applies, in terms of Section 64(3) of the FA only to taxable services provided on or after the commencement of this Chapter. xxxx 48. As already noticed since by virtue of Section 64(3) the whole of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fails to find sustenance. 8. Setting out the defence of the impugned orders, Learned Authorised Representative asserts that the appellant does not dispute the classification of the activity rendered by M/s Eversheds LLP, Singapore and further contends that the rescinding of section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 was followed by the notification of Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012 as integral to section 66B of Finance Act, 1994 in which rule 3 would come into play. It is also argued that there is no evidence of representation before a court or tribunal as to escape coverage of tax. 9. We have perused some of the invoices furnished by appellants and cannot but notice that these pertain to advise rendered by M/s Eversheds LLP, Singapore. These do not come within the purview of exclusion of charges for representation before courts or tribunals that, according to us, can be extended also to arbitral forums. The claim, made on behalf of the appellant, that only services rendered by business entity was taxable in the pre-negative list era does not preclude the service received by the appellants from M/s Eversheds LLP from being taxed as the provider of service has been so desc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
