9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 261 - AT - Service TaxImport of services - Intellectual Property of Services - appellant contended that, the service provider did not have any premises in India. The Appellant, therefore, contends that no Service Tax is payable in the instant case - Held that - Adjudicating authority has not considered the issue of Section 66A and also the issue of striking down of the provisions of Explanation to Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994. He has also not considered the Board s Circular dt.26.09.2011. It is also observed that the payment of ₹ 1,57,087.00 had been made by the Appellant during the period 01.04.2006 to 30.06.2006, whereas it is not clear from the facts when the related services were rendered. All these issues and other related issues have to be examined by the Adjudicating authority. Therefore, we are constrained to remand the matter back to the Adjudicating authority. - Matter remanded back to be decided afresh.
Issues: Service Tax liability on taxable services in the category of Intellectual Property of Services provided by a foreign service provider without premises in India. Applicability of reverse charge mechanism under Section 66A. Invocation of Explanation to Section 65(105) of Finance Act, 1994. Examination of latest case laws and Circular No.276/8/2009-CX.8A. Request for remand to Adjudicating authority.
The Appellant contested the demand for Service Tax of Rs. 79,71,335.00 on taxable services related to Intellectual Property of Services, arguing that the services were provided by a foreign entity without any premises in India, hence no Service Tax was due. The Appellant highlighted that the reverse charge mechanism under Section 66A was introduced after the payment dates, and the duty was confirmed under the Explanation to Section 65(105) instead of Section 66A, which had been struck down by the Bombay High Court. Citing precedents like Modi-Munidpharma Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Meerut, the Appellant emphasized that the relevant date for tax liability should be the date of service provision. The Revenue's representative contended that the Adjudicating authority failed to consider recent case laws and Circular No.276/8/2009-CX.8A in the assessment. Both parties requested a remand to the Adjudicating authority for a thorough examination of all relevant issues, including the applicability of Section 66A, the struck-down Explanation to Section 65(105), and the payment dates vis-a-vis service provision dates. The Tribunal noted the Adjudicating authority's oversight in addressing critical legal aspects and directed a remand for a fresh examination, emphasizing that no views on the case's merits were expressed, leaving all issues open for reconsideration. In conclusion, the appeal was disposed of by remanding the case to the Adjudicating authority for a comprehensive review, ensuring a fair hearing for the Appellant to address all legal issues raised and clarifying that no definitive opinions were given on the case's substance, leaving all matters open for further deliberation.
|
