9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . In our view, the ground on which this service tax demand has been made is totally wrong, as when undisputedly this service tax demand is in respect of the services received by the appellant company from their Holding Company located abroad in respect of services received during the period prior to 18.04.2006 and when the taxing event for the service tax is the provision of service and not the receipt of payment, in view of the judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipping Owners Association [2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], no service tax would be chargeable on the service received by the appellant company from the holding company located abroad during the period prior to 18.04.2006 and accordingly, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not paid the service tax. From their records, it appeared the during the above mentioned period of dispute, they had received taxable service from their Associate Company (holding company) on which service tax leviable is ₹ 3.18,73,116/- and from other companies they have received taxable service on which service tax chargeable is ₹ 6,28,33,731/- and thus, it appeared that the total service-tax chargeable on the taxable service received by them from foreign service provider is ₹ 9,47,06,847/-. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 24.04.2008 was issued to the appellant company for - (a) recovery of service tax along with education cess and secondary and higher education cess amounting to ₹ 9,47,06,847/- under prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice tax demand of ₹ 3,67,00,349/- was in respect of the goods imported and not the services received and service tax demand of ₹ 48,86,645/- had been counted twice. Against the above order of the Commissioner, this appeal has been filed. 2. Heard both the sides. 3. Shri Tarun Gulati, Advocate and and Shri Kishore Kunal, Advocate, the ld. Counsels for the appellant, pleaded that the service tax demand of ₹ 3,18,73,116/- in respect of the service received from the appellant' Associate Company (holding company) is not sustainable at all, as this demand is in respect of the services received during the period from October, 2002 to 31.03.2006 i.e. during the period prior to 18.04.2006 when Section 66 A had been introduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the Holding Company, the appellant would be deemed to have made the payment to the service provider, that Explanation- (C) to Section 67 having been introduced w.e.f. 10.05.2008 cannot be given retrospective effect, as there is nothing in this amendment to indicate that it has the retrospective application, that since in view of this, there was no service tax liability in respect of the services received from the holding company, as except for small amount of payment made on which service tax of ₹ 6,95,545/- had been made, remaining amount had not been paid, for this reason also, there would be no service tax liability, that as regards the service tax demand of ₹ 87,20,909/- in respect of the services received from other offs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had been made in the appellant's books of accounts. The department has confirmed the service tax demand of ₹ 3,18,73,116/-on the ground that on account of amendment to Section 67 by introducing Explanation - w.e.f. 10.05.2008, the appellant company would be treated as having made payment on this date and, therefore, serviced tax would be chargeable. In our view, the ground on which this service tax demand has been made is totally wrong, as when undisputedly this service tax demand is in respect of the services received by the appellant company from their Holding Company located abroad in respect of services received during the period prior to 18.04.2006 and when the taxing event for the service tax is the provision of service an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
