9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 385X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxable value of the service in question said to have been paid to the holding company up to 01.04.2007 - Apparently, the appellant was entitled to receive payments from the foreign company for the services which the appellant was liable to provide to them under the MOU. Prima facie, on such amount, no service tax can be levied from the appellant under Section 66A - prima facie case has been made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tire demand has been worked out on certain amounts expended by the appellant for Research and Development activities undertaken by Fosroc Technology Centre (FTC) housed in the appellants own premises up to 01.04.2007 and on the actual receipts of the appellant from their holding company Fosroc International Ltd., U.K. after the said date. We further note that the entire demand has been raised in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the material period. One of these materials is a letter dated 07.04.2006 of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research (Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India) addressed to the appellant wherein there was a reference to the appellant s in-house R D unit recognized by the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. Another document referred to by the learned cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the MOU. Prima facie, on such amount, no service tax can be levied from the appellant under Section 66A ibid. 2. The learned consultant has also pointed out that, on a similar set of facts, the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside a similar demand of service tax confirmed against the appellant by the original authority. He has also produced copies of order-in-appeal No. 67 68/2013 dated 12.03.2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
