9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (11) TMI 752X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f their claim in this matter - there are force in submission of appellant - demand not sustainable. Levy of penalty - the submission of appellant is that penalty is not imposable as the Service Tax demand along with interest was paid before the issue of show cause notice - HELD THAT:- Such matter cannot be taken as evasion of service tax, the matter is revenue neutral as the Cenvat credit of service tax is always admissible and it is a fit case, for invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 - it is evident from the records that the appellant discharged the service tax liability along with interest thereon as soon as they came to know about the liability of service tax in this matter and they also paid the same much before the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Central Excise Customs, Vadodara. 2. The relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the appellant availed services of the foreign based companies for raising/ collecting financial funds through External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) and Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds (FCCB). In the course of raising funds i.e. foreign borrowings, the appellant had received services from the service providers based outside India. Revenue is of the view that the amount paid by the appellant to said foreign service provides is liable to be taxed under reverse charge mechanism for service tax under banking and other financial services . The show cause notice was adjudicated after following due process of law, the demands were confirmed along ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he said documents and find force in submission of appellant, accordingly the service tax demand of Rs. 2,26,213./- is not sustainable. 6. As regard the penalty imposed, we find that the submission of appellant is that penalty is not imposable as the Service Tax demand along with interest was paid before the issue of show cause notice. Such matter cannot be taken as evasion of service tax, the matter is revenue neutral as the Cenvat credit of service tax is always admissible and it is a fit case, for invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. In this connection appellant also placed reliance on the decisions of Essar Steel Ltd. vs. CCE Surat I- 2009 (13) STR 579 (Tri. Ahmd). We find that it is evident from the records that the ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e convinced by the reason given by the Tribunal below that as the appellant was providing services to the central excise assessee, the service tax paid by him was available as Cenvat credit and, therefore, payment of service tax would be Revenue neutral exercise and in such case, there was no deliberate intention to evade tax. In our opinion, the Tribunal, in such circumstances, rightly exercised its discretion under Section 80 of the Act. We do not find any reason to interfere with the discretion exercised by the Tribunal below in the facts of these cases. We, accordingly, find no merit in these appeals and those are summarily dismissed. No costs. The Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CCE, Guntur vs. Narasaraopet Munici ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
