9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity for payment of service tax on services received from abroad will arise only from 18.04.2006 - demand for the prior period set aside. There is no justification for imposition of any penalty under the Finance Act, 1994. Appeal disposed off. - Appeal No.ST/153 & 206/2009 - FO/76879-76880/2018 - Dated:- 30-10-2018 - Shri P. K. Choudhary, Judicial Member and Shri V.Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Ravi Raghavan, Advocate, Shri Harsh Shukla Ms. N.Agarwal, CAs for the Appellant Shri K.Choudhary, Suptd.(AR) for the respondent. ORDER These are cross appeals filed against the Order-in-Original No.60/Commr/ST/Kol/2008-2009 dated 26.03.2009. The period of dispute is from 2003-2003 and 2005-2007. 2. Brief facts o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 3,18,977/-. Upon completion of the adjudication, the impugned order was passed to the following effect: i) Demand for service tax was restricted to ₹ 5,88,28,465/-. The balance demand of service tax was dropped. ii) The adjudicating authority observed that a significant part of the demand pertains to Transfer of Technology and this cannot be classified, as proposed in the show cause notice, under the category of Consulting Engineering Services . He observed that these activities fall under the Intellectual Property Service under Section 65(105)(zzr) ibid which was introduced only during the relevant period. Accordingly, service tax demand amounting to ₹ 15.56 crores. iii) Further, the adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... took to pay the service tax in respect of any amount not paid for the period w.e.f. 18.04.2006. d) Cenvat or amounting to ₹ 3.18 lakh availed on sales commission will be admissible to them. 4. Ld. DR fairly conceded that in view of the Apex Court s decision in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association vs. UOI (supra), the demand for service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism can commence only w.e.f. 18.04.2006. But he submitted that the matter may be remanded to the adjudicating authority for verification. He also submitted that some of the amounts paid by the assessee were paid after the due dates and hence liable to pay interest under Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dicating authority has been challenged in the appeal filed by the revenue. But these grounds raised by the revenue in their appeal are also liable to be rejected for the period prior to 18.04.2006. 8. The assessee has claimed that they have started payment of service tax w.e.f. 18.04.2006. It is their submission that some portion of the service tax even for the period prior to 18.04.2006 has already been paid by them. The ld.DR has suggested that particulars of payment of service tax on or after 18.04.2006 may be got verified by the adjudicating authority. 9. The demand for reversal of Cenvat Credit amounting to ₹ 3,18,977/- has been upheld by the adjudicating authority; the same has been challenged by the assessee in the presen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
