9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (11) TMI 1405X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l consideration charged by the service provider - there is no justification to invoke Rule 5 to hold that the appellants short paid Service Tax on reverse charge basis. Outstanding consideration to be paid by Holding Company - effect of amendment - Held that: - the amendment which brought in a deeming provision for transaction between associate enterprises is applicable from the that date only - the debit entries made prior to 10.05.2008 and shown outstanding on that date cannot be subjected to Service Tax on reverse charge basis based on the explanation, which was introduced under Rule 6 (1) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 w.e.f. 10.05.2008. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/52891/2014-CU [DB] - ST/A/57901/2017-CU[ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice provider in the course of providing taxable service and in terms of Rule 5 to be added in the gross value. There is another dispute regarding payment of Service Tax on the consideration attributable for the period prior to 10.05.2008 for transaction between associate enterprises. The Revenue held a view that the appellants did not pay service tax on the considerations, which were shown outstanding on the date of such amendment. The amendment brought in the principle that any debit or credit entries carried out in the transaction between Associate enterprises shall be considered as payment of such consideration. The original authority upheld the tax liability on such consideration. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant cannot escape such liability on the ground that these expenses are incurred by the holding company and paid to the appellant on reimbursement basis. 6. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 7. Admittedly, the appellants are discharging service tax on import of ITR services from their holding company. The holding company sends their personnel to India in connection with provide such IPR services. The expenditures incurred for such receipt are borne by the appellant and are fully reimbursed by the holding company. The appellants are not incurring expenditure towards additional consideration for taxable service received by them. In fact, they are paid for such expenses, which are borne by the service provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
