9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 878 - AT - Service TaxReverse Charge Mechanism - Business Exhibition Service - the services were provided outside India and the recipient is located in India - Held that - in terms of Taxation of Service (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006, the appellant is not liable to pay tax under the reverse charge mechanism in respect of the Business Exhibition Service - in an identical set of facts, this Tribunal in the case of Positive Packaging Industries Ltd. 2013 (4) TMI 727 - CESTAT MUMBAI has held that no service tax is payable by the receiver of the service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Demand of Service Tax on Business Exhibition Service under reverse charge mechanism. Analysis: The dispute revolved around the demand of Service Tax on Business Exhibition Service under the reverse charge mechanism. The appellant argued that since the services were received outside India, they should not be taxable under Section 66 A of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant also cited a previous Tribunal decision to support their stance that service tax liability cannot be imposed on the receiver for services provided outside India. On the other hand, the Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the impugned order. It was established that the services in question were provided outside India while the recipient was located in India. According to the Taxation of Service Rules, 2006, the appellant was not liable to pay tax under the reverse charge mechanism for the Business Exhibition Service. The Tribunal referred to a previous decision where it was held that no service tax is payable by the receiver of the service if the service is performed outside India. The Tribunal highlighted that the Business Exhibition Service, being entirely performed outside India and not partly in India, was not covered under taxable service. Consequently, the demand was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the impugned order and ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demand for Service Tax on Business Exhibition Service under the reverse charge mechanism.
|
