9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1332X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ber (T),JJ. For the Appellant : Mr B Venugopal, Adv For the Respondent : Mr R Gurunathan, Addl. Commissioner (AR) ORDER Per: B S V Murthy: During the course of verification of records of the assessee, it was noticed that as on 10/05/2008, there was an amount of ₹ 72,70,33,100/- was shown as outstanding from the associate company M/s. SITCO. W.e.f. 10/05/2008, Section 67 of the Finance Act was amended. After the amendment in the case of associated enterprises, the service tax was to be paid as soon as the amount was debited or credited in the accounts and the situation prevailing prior to the date wherein service tax was to be pad only after receipt of the amount changed. Taking a view that the amended provision ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has made out a prima facie case on merits. For better appreciation, paragraph 8 is reproduced below:- 8. Under Section 67(1) of Finance Act, 1994 where the service tax is chargeable on any taxable service with reference to its value, then such value shall be, in a case where the provision of the service is for the consideration in money, the gross amount charged by the service provider for such service provided or to be provided. Explanation (c) to this Section defines the term gross amount charged and during period prior to 10-5-2008, the gross amount charged included payment by cheque, credit notes or debit notes. By amendment to this explanation w.e.f. 10-5-2008, the book adjustments and any amount credited or debited, as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eland towards the value of services received from them and accordingly the service tax on such payments would be payable by the appellant by the 6th day of the month succeeding the month in which such debit entries have been made. We find that identical issue has been dealt with by the Tribunal in the case of Sify Technologies Ltd. v. CCE ST, LTU, Chennai (supra), wherein the Tribunal has held that the Explanation added to Rule 6(1) of Service Tax Rules, 1994 cannot be given retrospective effect. The ratio of the above judgment of the Tribunal is squarely applicable to the facts of this case and just on account of use of the words for the removal of doubts in the Explanation to Rule 6(1), this explanation cannot be treated as a clarific ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
