9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (7) TMI 42 - AT - Service TaxStay application Demand of service tax - export - money transfer service - services rendered to prospective customers or manufacturers in India Held that - The ratio of the Larger Bench in Paul Merchants Ltd. 2012 (12) TMI 424 - CESTAT, DELHI (LB) is applicable to the facts in the present case, as the services were provided by the petitioner to the overseas company M/s. GECAS, Ireland. - Services provided to the Irish company falls within provisions of Export of Service Rules, 2005 - exempt from the charge to service tax as decided in Vodafone Essar Cellular Ltd. vs. CCE, Pune-III, ( 2013 (6) TMI 366 - CESTAT MUMBAI) Stay granted.
Issues:
1. Confirmation of demand of service tax, interest, and penalty by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi. 2. Disentitlement to credit on transactions in foreign currency and immunity to service tax under Export of Service Rules, 2005. 3. Interpretation of services provided by the assessee and their classification under the Finance Act, 1994. 4. Applicability of the judgment in Paul Merchants Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh to the present case. 5. Granting total waiver of pre-deposit and stay of the adjudication order pending appeal. --- Issue 1: The judgment concerns the confirmation of the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi. The petitioner, a provider of 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' and 'Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Services,' was alleged to have failed to remit service tax for the period 2006-07 to 2009-10. The Adjudicating Authority passed the impugned order based on the conclusion that the services provided were used and consumed in India, leading to the disentitlement of the benefit of exemption from liability to tax under Export of Service Rules, 2005. --- Issue 2: The issue of disentitlement to credit on transactions in foreign currency and immunity to service tax under Export of Service Rules, 2005 was raised in the judgment. The adjudication concluded that the services provided by the petitioner were not eligible for the exemption under the mentioned rules due to their usage and consumption in India, leading to the denial of such benefits. --- Issue 3: The judgment delves into the interpretation of the services provided by the assessee and their classification under the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of services offered and their utilization in India, ultimately impacting the applicability of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 and the liability to service tax. --- Issue 4: The judgment extensively discusses the applicability of the judgment in Paul Merchants Ltd. vs. CCE, Chandigarh to the present case. The Tribunal found that the services provided by the petitioner to the overseas company fell within the provisions of Export of Service Rules, 2005, and hence were exempt from service tax. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and the interpretation of the law to support the petitioner's claim for exemption. --- Issue 5: Lastly, the judgment addresses the request for a total waiver of pre-deposit and the stay of the adjudication order pending appeal. The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, acknowledged a strong prima facie case in favor of the petitioner. Consequently, the Tribunal granted a total waiver of pre-deposit and stayed the operation of the impugned adjudication order until the appeal was disposed of. --- This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues addressed by the Tribunal, including the confirmation of service tax demand, disentitlement to benefits under Export of Service Rules, classification of services, application of legal precedents, and the decision on waiver of pre-deposit and stay of the adjudication order.
|
