9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 711X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving certain services during the period 2013-14 from service providers established outside India and paid service tax as a recipient of such services under reverse charge mechanism in terms of section 68(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 [the Finance Act] read with rule 2(1)(d)(G) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 [the 1994 Rules] and Notification No. 30/2012-ST dated 20.06.2012 [the Notification] on the amount of foreign payments made towards such services. 3. The appellant received a letter dated 30.07.2014 from the Superintendent, Service Tax Range, Udaipur containing some details provided by the IDBI Bank and the appellant was asked to give details of the foreign remittances made on which service tax had not been paid during the aforesaid perio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eed with the contention of the appellant regarding payment of service tax on the demand of Rs. 13,77,37,38/-, but the remaining service tax demand of Rs. 81,41,984/- proposed in the show cause notice was confirmed on the premise that the appellant had not provided invoice wise details in respect of the payment of service tax by correlating it with the remittances mentioned in the list shared by IDBI bank. The Commissioner further observed that payment of service tax of Rs. 6,56,79,014/- includes payment by other units of the appellant, but service tax was demanded in the show cause notice on the foreign remittance made by the appellant only. Hence, the contention that the service tax stands paid by the appellant with respect to the remainin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... horised representative appearing for the department, however, supported the impugned order and submitted that it does not call for an interference. Learned authorised representative pointed out that the appellant failed to provide invoice wise details of service tax payments during the adjudication proceedings. 10. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned authorised representative appearing for the department have been considered. 11. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that the appellant had regularly paid the applicable service tax on foreign remittances for the services received from the service providers outside India and reflected the same in the periodical ST- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... viders established outside India. The Commissioner committed an error in not accepting the contention advanced by the appellant by merely observing that the payment of service tax of Rs. 6,56,79,014/- includes payment by other units of the appellant also, but the demand of service in the show cause notice is based only on foreign remittances of the appellant only. 13. It is, therefore, necessary to remit the matter to the Commissioner to examine this contention of the appellant and not exclude the payments made by other units of the appellant. 14. Though, these facts were stated by the appellant before the Commissioner and have also been highlighted in this appeal, but liberty is granted to the appellant to file detailed submissions on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
