9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 493X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here has been no agreement between the appellant and the foreign service providers for providing service. It is actually M/s. RIHL which is the foreign company who has required the service providers to provide various services of due diligence before acquisition. In such event, merely because the said amount is shown in the books of the appellant, the activity cannot be considered as service provided to appellant so as to attract the levy of service tax. To levy service tax, the activity/transaction should involve a relationship of service provider and service recipient. In CBEC Education Guide (T.R.U.- Circular 20/ 2012), the Board has clarified the necessity to look into the quid pro quo in a transaction. It is explained therein that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand the service tax along with interest and also for imposing penalties. After due process of law, the Original Authority confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed penalties. Aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2.1 On behalf of the appellant, Ld. Counsel Shri. Santhana Gopalan D. appeared and argued the matter. He submitted that the appellant was incorporated in India only on 01.05.2008. The appellant is a Joint Venture Company with 75% shareholding by M/s. Renold International Holdings Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as . RIHL ) and 25% shareholding by M/s. L. G. Balakrishnan Bros Ltd. (referred to as LGB ). M/s. RIHL is a company incorporated in the United Kingdom and does not have any place of bus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services were entered into by M/s. RIHL and the service providers. The payment of consideration was also made by M/s. RIHL and therefore, the Department cannot demand service tax merely because the amount has been debited in the books of the appellant. 2.5 It is also argued by him that the demand is raised invoking Rule 5(1) of the Valuation Rules and that, in any case, this amount has to be considered as a reimbursable expense and is not leviable to service tax, as decided by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. 2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 401 (S.C.). 2.6 The Ld. Counsel also argued on the ground of limitation. He submitted that there is no positive evidence produced by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Eversheds, U.K. 1,11,533.73 92,34,992.844 3. Fox Mandal Co., India 3,32,762 2,75,52,693.6 4. Agilisys, U.K. 7,000 5,79,600 TOTAL 5,53,049.23 4,57,92,476.24 5.2 A letter dt. 08.02.2008 issued by one of the service providers, M/s. Ernst Young, U.K., is placed as part of the appeal records. It is categorically stated in this letter that the services are provided by them to M/s. RIHL (the foreign company) with regard to the overall due diligence in conn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
