9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsidiary of M/s Putzmester GMBH, Germany (hereinafter referred to as parent company). The respondent used to find customers for their parent company. Respondent also purchased goods from parent company and sold the same in India as a trading activity. At times such trading activity also involved high sea sales. Respondent also received consulting engineer service from parent company during the period from April 2008 to March 2009 but did not pay service tax on such services under reverse charge mechanism. Therefore, respondent were issued with a show cause notice dated 22.10.2012 by invoking proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994 demanding service tax amounting to Rs. 1,16,34,208/- and Rs. 10,34,872/- for the perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reign exchange and claimed that it was export of service, however, the beneficiaries were in India. In other words, the ultimate purchasers of the goods were in India, therefore, it was not export of service. He relied on Final Order No. A/85916/2019 dated 17.05.2019 passed by this Tribunal and submitted that for the period prior to 25.02.2010 in similar circumstances, the Tribunal has held that service tax was payable. 5. Heard the learned Counsel for the respondent. He has submitted that through Order-in-Original, penalty of around Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed on the respondent and the same is set aside through a separate order by this Tribunal. He further submitted that the respondent's role was limited to booking the purchase order for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there is no merit in the appeal filed b the Revenue. 6. We have carefully gone through the records of the case and submissions made. We note that in similar circumstances when the Indian company procure orders for foreign company, purely on sales commission basis and received sales commission in convertible foreign exchange then for the period after 26.02.2010, this Tribunal has held that the said activity should be treated as export of service. We also note that in para 17 of the show-cause notice dated 22.10.2012, it is stated that the respondent has suppressed the information. The said show-cause notice did not elaborate as to which information was required, in which provision of law and how it was suppressed. Therefore, we find that in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
