9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (3) TMI 608 - AT - Service TaxDuty demand u/s 68 - technical know-how and Consultancy Engineering Service - Payment of royalty - Held that - Transaction is one of supply of technical know-how and payment of royalty thereon. Supply of technical know-how does not fall under the category of Consultancy Engineers Service and, therefore, the classifications for levy of service tax adopted is incorrect. service provider is a foreign company and he has not authorized the respondent to pay service tax on his behalf and, therefore, the service tax liability cannot be fastened on to the appellant as decided by this Tribunal in the case of Navinon Ltd., cited supra. technical know-how has been provided by the foreign service provider. Therefore, the transaction is one of providing of service from abroad and receiving it in India, that is import of service and, therefore, the provisions of Section 68 read with Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994 do not apply - Decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Classification of service for levy of service tax under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. Analysis: The appeal involved a dispute regarding the levy of service tax on technical know-how and consultancy services received by M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd. from Vetro Pack Ltd., Switzerland. The Revenue contended that the services fell under the category of 'Consultancy Engineering Service,' making the respondent liable for service tax under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994. A notice was issued demanding service tax, interest, and penalties. The lower appellate authority allowed the appeal based on precedents cited from previous Tribunal cases. The Revenue challenged this decision before the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai. The Revenue argued that as per Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994, if a non-resident service provider without an office in India provides services, the recipient is liable to pay the service tax. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this interpretation. It noted that the transaction involved the supply of technical know-how, not falling under 'Consultancy Engineering Service.' Additionally, since the foreign service provider did not authorize the respondent to pay service tax on their behalf, the liability could not be imposed on the appellant, citing a previous Tribunal case. Furthermore, the Tribunal distinguished between services rendered in India and services received in India. It clarified that in the case of services provided from abroad and received in India, it constituted an import of service, not covered under Section 68 read with Rule 6 of the Service Tax Rules, 1994. The Tribunal highlighted that the taxation of such services from abroad was enabled by Section 66A inserted in the Finance Act, 1994, effective from 18-4-2006, allowing for service tax on a reverse charge basis from the recipient in India. This interpretation was supported by judgments from the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's appeal, dismissing it and upholding the lower appellate authority's decision in favor of the respondent, M/s. Larsen & Toubro Ltd.
|
