9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 50X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Manpower Supply and Recruitment service was not liable to remit tax in the absence of any legislative authorisation for levy and collection of service tax on a recipient of the service. Export of services - liability for remittance of tax on the basis of book entries made even though no consideration is actually received prior to 10.05.2008 - Held that:- For entries made prior to 10.05.2008 there is no liability to remittance of tax merely on account of amendment to the provisions of Section 67 of the Act is a principle concluded by decisions of this Tribunal in Sify Technologies vs. CCE [2010 (11) TMI 232 - CESTAT, CHENNAI] and Gecas Services India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, New Delhi [2014 (7) TMI 410 - CESTAT NEW DELHI]. Demand alongwith in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y and Recruitment Services . The appellant s defence that the deputation of employees by its overseas associates is in terms of an agreement whereby during the period of service with the appellant the employees work under the control and supervision of the appellant and therefore the activity falls outside the ambit of the taxable service alleged to have been rendered, was rejected by the ld. Commissioner. Another defence of the appellant and alternatively that since the service even if as alleged to fall under the classification asserted by Revenue since it was prior to 18.04.2006, there is no liability to remittance of tax on the appellant under reverse charge mechanism under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act), since this prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST 2014-TIOL-465-CESTAT-DEL, Alpine Modular Interiors Pvt. Ltd. 2014 (36) STR 454 (Tri. Del). and in Vodafone Cellular Ltd. vs. CCE- 2014 (34) STR 890 (Tri. Mum.). 5. Service tax of ₹ 2,52,20,279/- stands confirmed by the impugned order in respect of remittances by the appellant to overseas entities whose employees were seconded for service with the appellant. The remittances were prior to 18.04.2006. Revenue alleged and confirmed this allegation in the impugned order that Manpower Supply and Recruitment was provided by overseas entities to the appellant and since the overseas entities did not have permanent establishment in India, the inherence of tax liability fell on the appellant. This reversal of the normal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
