9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 597X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he category of Management Consultancy and Consulting Engineer . M/s. MSSL also paid Royalty/Service Charges for services received from M/s. STWSL, Japan under the category of Consulting Engineer , on which, service charge was paid to the government either by M/s. MSSL or by M/s. STWSL, Japan. Therefore, show cause notice was issued to M/s. MSSL and M/s. STWSL for recovery of the service tax. The show cause notice was adjudicated by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida, who confirmed payment of ₹ 16,05,850 under the provisions of Section 73A of the Finance Act 1994 against M/s. MSSL. He also imposed a penalty on M/s. MSSL and demanded interest on the service tax short paid. The appeal filed by M/s. MSSL was allowed by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agent of the service provider. 4. The Revenue in their grounds of appeal has taken the plea that Article 26 of the agreement between the service provider and receipt in of the service, provides for deduction of withholding tax in India. The agreement has to be read in proper spirit. 5. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that Article 9.1 of the technical assistance agreement does not throw any light on the payment of service tax by the respondents. Article 26 of the agreement provides that all questions arising out of this agreement shall be governed by and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Republic of India. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in para 8 to 12 of his order, which is reproduced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st August, 2002 effective from 16th August, 2002, by virtue of Rule 6(1) proviso (i), a person who was a non-resident or was from outside India, not having any office in India, could either himself pay the service tax on taxable services or could authorise any other person to discharge his service tax liability. The issue that needs to be determined in the first instance is whether under the technical assistant agreement (effective at the relevant time) between the appellants and M/s. SWS Japan, the service provider, the said M/s. SWS Japan had authorize the appellants to discharge their service tax liability. 11. Article 9.1 of the technical assistant agreement in force at the relevant time, inter alia, read as under: (a) The abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
