TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 567X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Tribunal in the case of M/S. MARCK BIOSCIENCE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE ST, AHMEDABAD [ 2019 (7) TMI 653 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] held that in case of sales commission to overseas commission agent under reverse charge mechanism, the extended time proviso is not invokable. With regard to the second show cause notice dated 20.03.2009 where under the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demand of Rs. 10,96,848/- also invoking relevant penal provision. In this regard, that show cause notice has been issued on 20.03.2009 demanding the duty for the period April, 2007 to March, 2008 by invoking larger period of limitation under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994. Since the first show cause notice has already been iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... read with Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 65 (105) (zzb) of the said act with regard to the Business Auxiliary Service, the appellant should have paid service tax on the services received by him from the persons based outside Indi. 1.2 After detailed inquiry following show cause notices came to be issued:- (i) Show cause notice No F. No. STC/4-20/O A/2008 dated 17.03.2008 covering period from 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2007 and demanding the service tax amounting to Rs. 56,93,236/- under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994 invoking larger period of 5 years of demand. (ii) Show cause notice F.No. STC-176/O A/SCN/Aarvee/ADC/R-IX/D-II/09 dated 20.03.2009 covering period from April 2007 to March 2008 demanding servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that he is not contending the matter on merit but only on the points of limitation. It has been submitted by the learned Advocate that the adjudicating authority has dropped the demand for the period 01.07.2003 to 18.04.2006 on the ground that provision of Section 66 A of the Finance Act, 1994 came into operation only on 18.04.2006. It is submitted that appellant was not aware of the concept of reverse charge which came in effect from 18.04.2006 and during the relevant period of time there was lot of confusion regarding the payment of service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. 2.1 The Learned Advocate has forcefully put forward his point of view that extended time proviso under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 340 (Tri.-Del) Texyard International Vs. CCE, Thichy 2015 (40) STR 322 (Tri. Chennai) HT India Ltd Vs. CST, New Delhi 2017 (7) GSTL 364 (Tri. Del) Acl Mobile Ltd Vs. CCE, Delhi 2019 (20) GSTL 362 (Tri. Del) In all the above decision it has been held by this Tribunal that there was a lot of confusion in the trade and a lot of litigation on the point of payment of service tax under reverse charge mechanism and hence the demand under the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 2.4 The learned advocate on the basis of above decision have submitted that confirmation of demand for the period 18.04.2006 to 31.03.2007 could not have been confirmed by the adjudicating authority as the extended time period was not inv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld. Counsel, the demand is not sustainable for the extended period. We find that during the relevant period, in the light of the Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court judgment in the case of Ambika Overseas (supra), the appellant was entitled for the Cenvat credit in respect of the service tax payable on commission paid to overseas commission agent. Therefore, even if the service tax was payable, there was a Revenue neutral situation hence, since there is no gain to the appellant, it cannot be said that there was malafide intention on the part of the appellant in non-payment of service tax. Therefore, extended period was clearly not invokable in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, we set-aside the demand for the longer period. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
