9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 1309X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hey are liable to pay the service tax on these amounts under reverse charge mechanism - on merits, the apellant falls. Time Limitation - Held that:- In the present case, the services were availed by NEPC and thereafter the payments were made by appellant pursuant to the Slump Sale Agreement. It is also seen that there is no specific stipulation in the agreement with regard to the burden to discharge the service tax liability - Further, in all the letters issued by the appellant to the department, they have given the details of the payments made and also clarified that they are making the payments in accordance with Slump Sale Agreement - the appellant cannot be saddled with the guilt of suppression of facts with intention to evade paymen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. Though the appellant had discharged the said freight charges, they had not paid the service tax upon such freight charges. It was also noticed that NEPC had entered into agreement with M/s. Garrad Hassan Partners Ltd. England for providing engineering consultancy needed for the manufacture and for purchasing of the parts, training and support to the appellant staff to do the assembly, erection and service of turbines etc. For such services, M/s. Garrad Hassan Partners Ltd. had charged the appellant ₹ 8,23,27/- for the period May 2006 to December 2006. NEPC had also entered into agreement with M/s. Norwin A/S Denmark for providing various services in respect of manufacture, erection and commissioning of machineries for g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce is received by the service recipient. In the present case, the appellant has not received the services. After taking over the business from NEPC payment to the clients who have provided were made. Only because appellant made the payments, the liability to pay the taxes cannot be fixed upon the appellant. That therefore on merits the appellant is not liable to discharge the service tax liability. 3. The ld. counsel also argued on the ground of limitation. The period involved is from January 2006 to February 2007 and the show cause notice has been issued on 12.5.2008. He argued that the Slump Sale Agreement is dated 16.1.2006 wherein the assumed liabilities indicate that the appellant has to pay the creditors. Nothing is said in the agr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the issue of limitation, ld. AR submitted that the appellant had furnished details only after the inquiries made by the department. But for the interference by DGCEI, the evasion would not have come to light and therefore the show cause notice issue invoking the extended period is sustainable. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The main contention put forward by the appellant is that as per Slump Sale Agreement, they have taken up only the assumed liabilities as contemplated in the agreement. The assumed liabilities include payment of freight charges as well as consulting engineering charges. It is contended by the appellant that there was no stipulation to pay up the service tax in connection with these payments and therefore they are not l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
