TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 525X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he service provider for quality checking. If the department is of the view that Fashion Force, Tiruppur is the branch office of JPS Trading, Dubai then it would be M/s.Fashion Force, Tiruppur who is liable to pay service tax. It cannot be said that the deductions made in the invoices raised in the name of M/s.Bonprix, Germany is a payment made to Fashion Force, Tiruppur - the demand raised under BAS , Technical Inspection and Certification Service is without any factual or legal basis and requires to be set aside - The issue on merits is answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. GTA Service - HELD THAT:- The authorities below have extended the benefit of abatement after the period 1.3.2008. The show cause notice has been issued invoking the extended period. Even if the appellant paid tax on GTA services, the appellant would be eligible for availing cenvat credit of the tax paid. The entire situation is revenue-neutral. In such situation, the extended period cannot be invoked as decided in the case of NIRLON LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI [ 2015 (5) TMI 101 - SUPREME COURT ]. The impugned order is modified to the extent of settin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s therefore liable to pay service tax under GTA Service also. The appellant failed to register themselves, pay service tax and file ST-3 returns. Show cause notice dt. 11.04.2010 was issued proposing to demand the service tax under Business Auxiliary Service , Technical Inspection and Certification Service and GTA Service . After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest under BAS and Technical Inspection Certification services. In regard to GTA services, demand along with interest was confirmed after granting abatement for the period after 1.3.2008 only. Penalties were also imposed. Aggrieved by such order, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who vide order impugned herein upheld the demand, interest and penalties imposed. Hence this appeal. 2. The Learned Counsel Sri M.N. Bharathi appeared and argued for the appellant. Ld. Counsel adverted to the invoice raised by the appellant on M/s.Bonprix, Germany and submitted that the deductions are shown in the invoice price as packing recycling compensation , bonus , inspection charges . The appellant has not made any payment to M/s.JPS Trading, Dubai or their ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. The said condition requires that the appellant has to furnish declaration that the Goods Transport Agency has not availed cenvat credit on capital goods. This condition in the notification was omitted w.e.f. 1.3.2008 and therefore abatement was granted for the period after 1.3.2008. It is argued by the counsel that the appellant had used the transport services for export of goods. Services in relation to export cannot be subjected to levy of service tax. It is also submitted that even if the appellant had paid service tax, the same would be eligible as credit to the appellant and the entire exercise, in any case, is revenue-neutral. For these reasons, the invocation of extended period cannot sustain. Ld. Counsel prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 3. Ld. A.R Shri Anoop Singh appeared and argued for the Department. The findings in the impugned order was reiterated. It is argued that M/s.JPS Trading, through its local office helps the appellant in getting the export orders and to receive payment for the goods supplied to Bonpprix, Germany. Further, M/s.JPS Trading, through its local office, also helps the appellant in supplying the goods of desired quality, by under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by M/s.Fashion Force in India. According to the department, it is an agent of M/s.JPS Trading, Dubai. However, there is no payment made by the appellant to M/s.Fashion Force. We therefore do not understand how there would be a service rendered by M/s.Bonprix, Germany to the appellant so as to be taxable under reverse charge mechanism. Even if there was any service rendered in regard to quality checking, the demand ought to have been raised against M/s.Fashion Force, who is the service provider for quality checking. If the department is of the view that Fashion Force, Tiruppur is the branch office of JPS Trading, Dubai then it would be M/s.Fashion Force, Tiruppur who is liable to pay service tax. It cannot be said that the deductions made in the invoices raised in the name of M/s.Bonprix, Germany is a payment made to Fashion Force, Tiruppur. For these reasons, we find that the demand raised under BAS , Technical Inspection and Certification Service is without any factual or legal basis and requires to be set aside which we hereby do. The issue on merits is answered in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. 6. In regard to the demand raised under GTA service, we find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
