9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (4) TMI 955X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard Jointing Compound, etc. in collaboration with them by using their technology and technical assistance. In terms of Article 8.1, the appellant were to pay a lump sum amount of Rs400000/- outside India to a bank as specified by M/s. BPB in three instalments - one third amount after the date of the agreement, next one third within 30 days of M/s.BPB certifying that all the written information contained in the 1st schedule to the agreement has been supplied to the appellant and the remaining one third instalment within 30 days of the commencement of the commercial production or 4 years from the date of the agreement, whichever is earlier. The amount of Rs.400000 period sterlings for the technical knowhow has been paid by the appellant to M/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.63,22,985/- for the period from 10.09.2004 to 30.11.2007 along with interest thereon and also for imposition of penalty on the appellant under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner vide order-in-original dated 1.10.2008 by which the above mentioned service tax demand was confirmed along with interest and besides this, while penalty of Rs.65,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-payment of service tax and for suppressing the value of the taxable service from the department, a penalty of Rs.5,000/- was imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for non-submission of the ST-3 returns. Against this order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India in respect of the taxable services received by him from an offshore service provider, that in this regard, he relies upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India reported 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bombay), that in any case the Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak had no jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice and confirm service tax demand against the appellant, as their registered office is located at Mumbai and they have plants at three locations Thane (Maharastra), Thiruvalli (Tamil Nadu) and Jind, (Haryana) and just because one of the plants of the appellant company is located in Haryana, the Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Rohtak could n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, pleaded that there is no infirmity in the impugned order. 5. We have considered the submissions from both the sides and perused the records. The service tax is sought to be demanded on the amount being paid by the appellant to BPB, UK in terms of Article 8.2 of their agreement with them. While in terms of the Article 8.1 of the Agreement, the appellant were required to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.400000 as consideration for technical knowhow provided, within a specified period and the same amount has already been paid, Article 8.2. provides for recurring annual payment @3% of the annual sales turnover for technical services provided by M/s. BPB to the appellant. The technical services being provided are those mentioned in Annexure-II ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
