9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... echnical) Shri. M.P. Baxi, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. B. Kumar Iyer, Superintendent ( A. R. ) for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The appellant are registered service tax assessee for the services namely, (i) Business Auxiliary Service, (ii) Technical Inspection and Certification Service, (iii) Market Research Agency Service, (iv) Transport of Goods by Road Service (v) Online Information and Data Access or Retrieval Service (vi) Scientific or Technical Consultant Service. The case of the department is that appellant have received various services from foreign based service providers. They are liable to pay service tax on the consideration received from foreign persons on reverse charge basis as per Sectio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . C. The Appellants submit that out of the above amount of ₹ 47, 83, 542/-, an amount of ₹ 7, 50, 570/- was admittedly incurred in respect of Scientific 8z, Technical Consultancy services rendered to the Appellants outside India. Of the said amount, an amount of ₹ 6,08,647/- was required to be adjusted as the Appellants had erroneously paid service tax under GTA service on export freight paid to shipping lines, so that no service tax on GTA was in fact payable. D. The Appellants submit that a further amount of ₹ 11, 67, 752/ - was required to be reduced towards service tax liability on Convention service received outside India as the same was paid before 18th April 2006. E. The Appellants submit that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . (i) Plantech Consultants v/s CCE 2016 (41) STR 859 (1) (ii) Jubilant Organosys v/s CCE 2015 (38) STR 1230 (T) J. In the present case, as aforesaid, the entire excess payment by the Appellants was in respect of periods prior to 18/4/2006, and the Appellants seek adjustment in respect of periods after that date. In support of his submission, he also has given re-quantification chart which is reproduced below: Sr. No Net liability as per OIO No.33 dtd : 30.10.2012 4,783,542 1. Less : payment against Scientific Technical consultancy service recorded by the Commissioner in para 3.22 of above OIO but not considered in his fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djustment against the tax confirmed in the impugned order, which we have taken plea in demand, allowed to be adjusted. Paid vide GAR-7 no. 30/06-07 dtd : 07.03.2007 1,020,000 Paid vide GAR-7 no. 30/06-07 dtd : 07.03.2007 1,530,000 Paid vide GAR-7 no. 04/07-08 DTD : 12.05.2007 929,441 TOTAL 3,479,441 From the above submission of the appellant, it is seen that various discrepancies were pointed out by the Ld. Counsel. As regard the correct quantification of the demand, this issue being pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
