9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 914X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in dispute, that is, from 01/07/2003 to 10/09/2004. The appellant has discharged duty accepting the liability from 10/09/2004 to March 2009 with interest. Levy of service tax - amount paid for receiving Management Consultancy Service , and Intellectual Property Rights Services from the overseas buyer under reverse charge mechanism - HELD THAT:- Disputing the said demand the appellant has submitted that even though the disputed amount has been reflected in the balance it but since the same were subsequently reversed being not paid hence no service tax liability could be fastened on them. Further, it is their contention that the demand on these services have been confirmed by the learned Commissioner on the basis of a report received from the service tax Commissionerate, however, copy of the same was not passed on them - therefore both the issues requires reconsideration by the Commissioner after passing on copy of the report collected from the service tax Commissionerate to the appellant. Management, Maintenance or Repair Service relating to software provided to their clients - levy of service tax - HELD THAT:- This aspect has not been examined by the adjudicating authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aining or Coaching Service w.e.f. 25/03/2005. On the basis of investigation carried out by the service tax department it is alleged that the appellant had, though provided services under the taxable category of Commercial Training or Coaching Services from July 2003 to July 2007, but failed to discharge service tax of ₹ 4,54,28,547/- on the amount received for imparting the training to graduates and professional students on use of ERP software modules designed by M/s SAP India Pvt Ltd; also even though the appellant had received services from overseas service providers in relation to Management Consultancy Services and Intellectual Property Rights Services , during the relevant period but failed to discharge service tax of ₹ 50,67,901/- ₹ 20,01,291/- respectively, under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994; also, it is alleged that they have failed to discharge service tax of ₹ 1,99,748/- on Repair and maintenance services during the said period; also it is alleged that they had availed inadmissible CENVAT credit of ₹ 1,91,57,435/- and utilized the same in discharging their service tax liability. Consequently, show cause notice was issued to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e been allowed to the appellant. It is his contention that section 67(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 itself provides that where the gross amount charged by a service provider is inclusive of service tax payable, the value of taxable service shall be such amount as with the addition of tax payable, is equal to the gross amount charged. In support he has referred to the judgment of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Customs v. Advantage Media Consultant [2008 (10) STR 449 (T)]. 4. Further, he has submitted, the Learned Commissioner erred in disallowing the CENVAT credit availed on the service tax paid on the input services for the services received at various branches on the ground that no centralized registration had been obtained for their Mumbai office. It is their contention that payments of all expenses were disbursed from their Mumbai office and they do not have separate bank accounts maintained branch wise. Billing for taxable services provided as well as accounting of the same are maintained at their Mumbai office only. The service tax liability of all branches are discharged from Mumbai office. Hence, merely because they did not have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... maintenance of software, hence subsequently they have written off a portion of outstanding dues which the Learned Commissioner has failed to appreciate even though specifically argued by the appellant. 6. On the issue of limitation, the Learned Advocate has submitted that the appellant bonafidely believe that they were not liable to discharge service tax and obtained service tax registration only on 25/03/2005 and discharged service tax liability for the period 10thSeptember 2004 onwards on 12.7.2005. The appellant has collected the service tax from the service recipient only w.e.f. September 2004 and paid the same to the Government. Therefore, invoking the extended period of limitation alleging willful suppression is untenable in law. The Appellant have paid the service tax belatedly and filed service tax returns belatedly. Therefor, there cannot be suppression of facts to evade payment of service tax. Further, he has submitted that since the issue involves interpretation ofrelevant provisions of the Statute , therefore, extended period also cannot be invoked. 7. Learned Authorised Representative for the Revenue reiterated the findings of the Learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. Therefore, the exemption is not available to the appellant for the period in dispute, that is, from 01/07/2003 to 10/09/2004. The appellant has discharged duty accepting the liability from 10/09/2004 to March 2009 with interest. 11. Regarding the issue of liability of service tax on the amount paid for receiving Management Consultancy Service , and Intellectual Property Rights Services from the overseas buyer under reverse charge mechanism, the Learned Commissioner dropped the demand for the period up to 18/04/2006 i.e. the date of insertion of Section 66A of the Act and confirmed the demand for the period thereafter, on the basis of a verification report received from service tax Commissionerate. Disputing the said demand the appellant has submitted that even though the disputed amount has been reflected in the balance it but since the same were subsequently reversed being not paid hence no service tax liability could be fastened on them. Further, it is their contention that the demand on these services have been confirmed by the learned Commissioner on the basis of a report received from the service tax Commissionerate, however, copy of the same was not pas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sons disentitle an input service distributor from availing Cenvat credit unless and until such registration was applied and granted. It was in this background that the Tribunal viewed the requirement as curable. Particularly when it was found that full records were maintained and the irregularity, if at all, was procedural and when it was further found that the records were available for the Revenue to verify the correctness, the Tribunal, in our opinion, rightly did not disentitle the assessee from the entire Cenvat credit availed for payment of duty. Question No. 1 therefore shall have to be answered in favour of the respondent and against the assessee. 14. There is no dispute of the facts that the accounts of all branches are maintained at their head office; and service tax is also paid from the head office. In other words, centralized accounting system has been operated from the Head Office at Mumbai where credit has been availed and utilized in discharging service tax liability from the Head Office. In these circumstances, following the ratio laid down Dashion Ltd. s case, merely because the Mumbai office has not obtained centralized registration under the Rel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
