9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (4) TMI 111 - AT - Service TaxTaxability for the period 18.04.2006 to 31.03.2008 - Technical inspection of certification services outside India to Food and Drug Administration of USA - Reverse charge mechanism as per Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that - in order to market the goods in USA the products needs to be certified by US FDA for which they have to pay a fee which have been charged under reverse charge mechanism. The decision of the Tribunal in the case of K.G. Denim Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem 2014 (9) TMI 544 - CESTAT CHENNAI squarely applies to the case and payment of charges for technical inspection of certification services outside India will not fall under the category of reverse charge mechanism. Taxability for the period 18.04.2006 to 31.03.2008 - Business exhibition service outside India to Food and Drug Administration of USA - Reverse charge mechanism as per Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that - the Tribunal in the case of Positive Packaging Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad 2013 (4) TMI 727 - CESTAT MUMBAI has held that it gets attracted only if it is performed in India. It is also held that that business exhibition service, if entirely performed outside India would not get covered under taxable service even under reversed charge mechanism. Therefore, by following the same, as the appellant had engaged the services of an entity for business exhibition service outside India, same is not taxable. - Decided in favour of appellant
Issues:
Service tax liability under reverse charge mechanism for technical inspection of certification services and business exhibition services. Analysis: The judgment pertains to two appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mumbai-II, involving the period from 18/04/2006 to 31/03/2008. The lower authorities had confirmed the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty on the appellants for payments made to the Food and Drug Administration of USA for technical inspection of certification services and business exhibition services. The issue revolved around the liability of the appellants to discharge service tax under the reverse charge mechanism as per Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, it was noted that the appellant sought certification of their products from the Food and Drug Administration of USA, which was a statutory requirement for selling products in the USA. The appellant argued that the payments made to the US FDA were fees for certification, not for a taxable service. Referring to a previous judgment in the case of K.G. Denim Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem, it was established that payments for certain services would not fall under the reverse charge mechanism, similar to the situation in the present case. Regarding business exhibition services, it was highlighted that such services would only attract service tax if performed in India. Citing the case of Positive Packaging Industries Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad, it was clarified that business exhibition services performed entirely outside India would not be covered under taxable services, even under the reverse charge mechanism. As the appellant had engaged services for business exhibition outside India, it was determined that no service tax liability arose under the reverse charge mechanism. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the service tax liability did not apply to the appellants under the reverse charge mechanism for the services in question. The impugned orders confirming the demand of service tax, interest, and penalty were set aside, and the appeals were allowed in favor of the appellants.
|
