9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 962X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... them, by wilfully suppressing their activities from the Department. 1.2. The said Notice was adjudicated by the Ld. Principal Commissioner vide the Order-in-Original No. 09/Commr/ST-I/Kol/2015-16 dated 23.11.2015 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned order") wherein the demands of Service Tax, along with interest and penalties, were confirmed against the appellant. 2. Aggrieved by the confirmation of the said demands, the appellant has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that they have rendered the following services to M/s. Dowco Consultants Limited located in USA/Canada : - (i) Designing job relating to a foreign country with use of software under Licence through M/s. Dowco Consultants Limited; (ii) Supervision service rendered by M/s. ITe Max Inc. to M/s. Dowco Consultants Limited in foreign country. 3.1. The Ld. Counsel submits that the management and ownership of business carried on by M/s. Dowcomax Services (India) Pvt. Ltd. was promoted, owned and managed by foreign shareholders; the said foreign shareholders have discontinued the business of M/s. Dowcomax Services (India) Pvt. Limited and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rat v. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Ahmedabad-III & anr. [Final Order No. A/10685-10686/2022 dated 10.06.2022 in Servcie Tax Appeal No. 11064 of 2015 (CESTAT, Ahmedabad)]. 3.5. The appellant has also raised the ground that the entire demand is barred by limitation. In this regard, the appellant submitted that they have not suppressed any information from the Department and were registered with the Department; they were also filing their returns regularly, disclosing foreign expenditure receipts regularly in their books of account. It is the appellant's contention that as the demand in this case has been raised on the basis of the information available in the books of accounts, no suppression of facts established in this case. The appellant submits that the Show Cause Notice in this case for the period from 2008-09 to 2011-12 was issued on 21.10.2013. Thus, the appellant has contended that in the absence of any suppression of facts with the intention to evade payment of tax existing in this case, the demand confirmed against them by invocation of the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 3.5.1. It is also the appellant's submission that they were under bona fide belie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ork was ever done in India. The company incurred expenses in foreign currency for purchase of goods and services from outside India. The company being engaged in export of services to a foreign land from a foreign land, used to pay for purchase of goods and services used for rendering such export of services and these goods or services were always received/used outside India. They were never brought to India or used in India in any manner. The payment for these goods or services were made in foreign currency and outside India. For purposes of financial accounts, the value of exports as well as value of expenses incurred in foreign currency were converted to Indian currency and reported in Audited Accounts. Showing the foreign currency expenditure in their books of accounts would not automatically mean that the appellant has imported the services into India. 7.1. In the Show Cause Notice and the impugned order, it has been stated that the appellant made payment of foreign exchange. This is not denied or disputed. The twin conditions of reverse charge mechanism for import of services were that the service must be rendered from outside India and the services must be received in India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eign currency expenditure incurred. The proceedings initiated by issue of the present Show Cause Notice on 21.10.2013 in respect of Financial Years 2008-09 to 2011-12 are all time-barred as on date of issue of the Show Cause Notice. Thus, we hold that the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation is not sustainable. 9. In this regard, we find it relevant to refer to the decision rendered by the Tribunal at Ahmedabad in the case of M/s. Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd., Gujarat v. Commissioner of C.Ex. & S.T., Ahmedabad-III & anr. [Final Order No. A/10685-10686/2022 dated 10.06.2022 in Service Tax Appeal No. 11064 of 2015 (CESTAT, Ahmedabad)] wherein the following has been observed: - "5.4 Without prejudice, we also find that provisions of Section 66A(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 reproduced below provide as under. ............... Above Section 66A(2) and its Explanation -I make it clear and to fix service tax liability on recipient of services under reverse charge mechanism that both the permanent establishments in India and abroad of a business person are to be treated as separate persons. The above clarification made in Section 66A is only for making an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
