9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (10) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the recovery of interest on the amount of Rs. 2,63,176. The learned counsel appearing for the applicant argued that as regards the invoice dated April 2, 2002 in respect of which an amount of service tax of Rs. 25,484 was demanded, the applicant was not liable to pay the tax because the amendment made on August 16, 2002 was not retrospective in nature and the recipient of service could not be held liable to pay service tax in respect of services received prior to that date. He further contended that as regards the services received by the applicant under the invoices dated December 18, 2002 and June 9, 2003, the applicant was not liable to pay service tax, since these services were received abroad and not in India. He also submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unt of tax shall be paid by the applicant to the service provider in addition to the lumpsum price. Under clause 4.4 of the agreement, all payments were exclusive of taxes which were to be paid by the applicant. The applicant was required to forward original tax receipts evidencing payment of taxes. In this context, the learned authorised representative for the department placed reliance on the decision of the Kerala High Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Thiruvananthapuram v. Kerala State Electricity Board reported in [2007] 5 VST 46 (Ker); [2006] TIOL 245 (Ker) [HC] (ST), in which the High Court held in paragraph 11 of the judgment that, going by the agreement executed between the service provider and the receiver, it was clear tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposed, that there was no suppression as found by the authorities below. The letters dated November 12, 2003 and April 23, 2004 were not sent by the applicant on its own, but the details were given thereunder on demand from the department for compliance of the local audit report. Under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, no penalty shall be imposed on the assessee for any failure referred to in sections 76, 77 or 78 of the Act, if the assessee proves that there was reasonable cause for the said period. The imposition of penalty was dropped in the light of the said provision which has nothing to do with the invocation of the extended period. Therefore, the applicant has not made out a case for total waiver of pre-deposit for hearing the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
