9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 1052X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oftware services and the total service tax liability on such import. The liability of payment of interest under Section 75 also needs to be re-checked in the light of the Revenue's appeal. For this purpose, we consider it necessary to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority who is directed to pass orders expeditiously. The issue of classification of the imported software can also be considered in the light of decision of CESTAT Bangalore brought to our notice by the appellant-assessee. - Appeals disposed of by way of remand - Appeal No.ST/256/2011 with ST/CO/14/2011 & Appeal No.ST/258/2011 - Final Order No.40840-40841/2016 - Dated:- 20-5-2016 - SHRI D.N. PANDA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI V. PADMANABHAN, TECHNICAL MEMBER F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance Act, 1994. It was found during investigation that they had not paid any service tax such import. It was also found that the assessee, after repairs and customization, supplied the software to their customers in India and on this activity, they have discharged service tax under the category of Management, Maintenance or Repair Service in terms of Section 65 (64) of the Finance Act, 1994. In the impugned order, the Commissioner held that appellant-assessee was liable to pay service tax for the import of software services under the category of Information Technology Software Service under the reverse charge mechanism. However, he observed that the aggregate import value is ₹ 37,78,71,679/- whereas the gross value of service pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant-assessee paid the service tax on the output service. 4. Heard Ld.D.R appearing on behalf of Revenue and Ld.Advocate for the appellant-assessee. 5. Ld. D.R argued that the Commissioner has arrived at the various conclusions in the impugned order by simply relying on the relevant claim without giving any definite findings and without carrying out any independent verification with relevant records. In respect of the aggregate value of import of software, the Commissioners observation is not factually correct as he has included the import done by M/s.Sara Enterprises and M/s.Technicon Automation which happened after 10.4.2009 i.e. after the period of dispute. He also pointed out that in respect of imports under invoice No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l value of imported software services in the impugned order, were not for import but for service domestically procured by them. 8. We have perused the records of this case and given due to consideration to the points urged before us by both sides. The dispute in this case may be crystallized into the following four points :- (i) whether service tax liability on reverse charge basis under Section 66A arises on the software service which has been imported; if so under which category (ii) whether the liability has been discharged; (iii) whether interest liability under Section 75 arises and (iv) is there any liability for levy of penalty. The ld. Commissioner in his detailed findings has already held that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rged by the appellant-assessee within the time available to them under the rules. Thereafter on satisfying the procedural requirement under the Cenvat Rules the same may be availed as cenvat credit on such input service and utilized to discharge service tax on output service. They should also maintain appropriate prescribed documentation to satisfy the Revenue authorities. Such documentation would also serve as an easy reference to verify the discharge of service tax liabilities as well as to compute payment of interest, if necessary in future. 9. We find no serious infirmity in the view taken by the Commissioner that adjustment of service tax payable in the import of services as well as paid on the output service can be permitted as lon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
