TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1156X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The Board has accepted this position. Accordingly, the instruction F.No.275/7/2010-CX8A dated 30.06.2010 stands rescinded - thus, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax for the demand. Processing Fee - Facility Fee of USD 15 million- Arrangement Fee - HELD THAT:- The appellant has already been paid service tax along with interest. Therefore, the demand against the appellant is not sustainable. Facility Fee of USD 50 million - HELD THAT:- The demand has already been dropped by the Adjudicating Authority, accordingly, the same is not in dispute. Requirement to issue SCN - HELD THAT:- As the appellant has already been paid service tax along with interest, the show-cause notice was not requi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... located at West Bengal. In order to finance, its capital expenditure with respect to expansion and modernization, the appellant raised capital through external commercial borrowing (ECB) for US$ 20 Million, US$ 15 Million and US$ 50 Million respectively with M/s ICICI Bank Limited. M/s ICICI Bank Limited arranged the ECB through its overseas Branch located at Singapore. 2.1 In April, 2007, DGCEI, Kolkata, initiated an investigation wherein it was contended that the various charges remitted by CESE to ICICI Bank, Singapore for obtaining the ECB loans were taxable under Banking and Other Financial Services in terms of Section 65(105)(zm) read with Section 65(12) of the Act and since ICICI Bank Ltd., Singapore Branch has its place of busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (13) STR 235 (Bom.), which is affirmed by the Hon ble Apex Court as reported in 2010 (17) STR J57 (S.C.). He, therefore, submits that the proceedings against the appellant are not sustainable. 4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue reiterated the impugned order. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. As per the show-cause notice, the demand of service tax is bifurcated as follows : Sl. No Dt.of payment Nature of Fee FC Amount Amount (INR) Service Tax Edu. Cess Total 1. USD 20 Million 29.12.05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 10209156 204184 10413340 7. We find that Sl.Nos.1 2 above, pertain to the period prior to 18.04.2006 and as per CBEC Circular F.No.276/8/2009-CX8A dated 26th September, 2011, it has been clarified as under : 2. I view of the aforementioned judgements of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the service tax liability on any taxable service provided by a non-resident or a person located outside India, to a recipient in India, would arise w.e.f. 18.04.2006, i.e. the date of enactment of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The Board has accepted this position. Accordingly, the instruction F.No.275/7/2010-CX8A dated 30.06.2010 stands rescinded. 8. In view of the above said Circular, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
