9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 744X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndrasekharan: 1. The appeal and stay petition are directed against Order-in-Original No.23/ST/RN/CMR/M-III/13-14 dated 28.2.2014 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai II. 2. Vide the impugned order the learned adjudicating authority has confirmed a service tax demand of Rs. 3,13,81,416/- for the period 2006-07 to 2008-09 alongwith interest thereon. A penalty of equal amount is also im ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the learned consultant that since the services have been rendered abroad and the ultimate recipient of the services is M/s Monster Inc, the transaction is not taxable in India. It is also contended that the demand is barred by limitation. The appellant had furnished all the requisite information vide letter dated 12.11.2007 to the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai. However, nothing happe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion and the appellant had received the services in India and therefore in terms of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellant is liable to discharge the service tax liability on reverse charge basis on the services received. As regards the time bar issue, the learned Additional Commissioner submits that the appellant did not declare their activities to the department, nor did they indicat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et of circumstances, it is evident that it is the appellant who is recipient of the services and not M/s Monster Inc. Therefore, in terms of Section 66A, the appellant would be liable to pay service tax on the services received. 8. However, it is the contention of the appellant that the demand is time barred inasmuch as early as in November 2007, the appellant had furnished details of the service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
