Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (11) TMI 290 - AT - Service TaxAgreements with certain foreign vendors and for receiving their services viz design drawing offering technical knowledge along with expertise and technical assistance from them - According to applicant sale of know-how should not be treated as rendering of services- further applicant submitted that services though utilized in India by the appellant they were actually rendered outside India - findings of the Commissioner that the applicant was liable to pay service tax in the category of Consulting Engineering Services is prima facie legal and proper stay granted partly
Issues: Liability of service tax on payments made to foreign vendors for services received; Interpretation of agreements for design, drawing, technical knowledge, and expertise; Applicability of Circular F. No. B. 43/5/97-TRU; Jurisdiction on service tax for know-how transfer; Location of service providers and utilization of services; Prima facie case for waiving duty, interest, and penalty.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the issue revolved around the liability of service tax on payments made to foreign vendors for services received by the appellant. The Commissioner had confirmed a demand for service tax, interest, and penalty under Section 76, categorizing the services as Consulting Engineering Services based on agreements for design, drawing, technical knowledge, and expertise. The Commissioner relied on a clarification by CBEC through Circular F. No. B. 43/5/97-TRU, dated 2-7-1997. The appellant argued that the payments were for the transfer of know-how and information, not for services rendered, and even if considered services, they were provided by foreign vendors outside India, although utilized in India by the appellant. After hearing both sides and examining the submissions and records, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner's determination of the appellant's liability for service tax was prima facie legal and proper. The Tribunal noted that the appellant failed to establish a strong prima facie case to waive the entire duty. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellant to deposit a specified sum towards the service tax demanded within a given timeframe and report compliance accordingly. Upon such deposit, the Tribunal waived the balance amount of duty, interest, and penalty imposed on the appellant, staying the recovery process. The judgment highlights the importance of analyzing the nature of payments to foreign vendors, distinguishing between service provision and know-how transfer, and considering the jurisdictional aspects of service tax liabilities. It underscores the significance of establishing a strong prima facie case to support requests for waiving duties, interest, and penalties in such tax matters.
|