9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 291X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appellant have filed ST-3 returns wherein details of payments have been declared. In this fact the demand for the extended period is not sustainable. The appellant alternatively claimed the benefit of Section 73 (3) of finance Act, 1994 on the ground that the entire service tax along with interest paid prior to show cause notice. Considering this position the demand for extended period is not sustainable hence the same is set aside. Demand for the normal period if any, is sustained along with interest. The penalties are not sustainable hence the same is set aside. Since we have considered appellant s submission on the point of Section 73 (3) we are not going into other issue such as jurisdiction and taxability. Appeal allowed i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TDS on gross royalty as per Income Tax Act. Subsequently, an investigation was initiated on 09.01.2009 by the preventive team of the Surat- II Commissionerate wherein the appellant was requested to submit details of service tax discharged under Reverse charge on franchise service received. The appellant during the course of investigation paid the balance service tax of RS. 17,17,373/- on the value of TDS deducted from royalty for the period 16.06.2005 to 28.02.2009 along with interest. Pursuant to aforesaid investigation, show cause notice dated 12.11.2009 was issued alleging short payment/non payment of service tax on gross royalty amount from 01.01.2005 to 15.06.2005 and also on TDS component an amount of Rs. 17,17,373/- for the period 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in any manner whatsoever to CBV as a Franchisee. CBV paid service tax on the royalty payments for the period 16.06.2005 to 28.02.2009 under the bona fide mistake that the services qualify as franchise service. Based on the agreement entered into between the appellant and CBGMBH the service rendered thereof as compared to the relevant provision of the taxable category of franchise service, the services of grant of license to manufacture the product would not be covered under the ambit of taxable services category of franchise services. He further submits that there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant as the issue on merit was under litigation that whether in case of receipt of service from abroad, the recipient is liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y Bele Associates 2008 (9) STR 350 (Bom.) JKD Popat vs. CCE, Nashik - 2008 (9) STR 54 MR Bhagat v. CCE Nashik- 2008 (10) STR 130 CCE Coimbatore Vs. T. Stanes and Co. 2008 (12) STR 236 3. Shri G.Kirupanandan, Learned Assistant Commissioner (AR) reiterates the finding of the impugned order. 4. We have carefully considered the submission made by both sides and perused the records. Before going into the merit of the case that is the jurisdiction issue and taxability, we find that the appellant have made a submission about limitation and sought benefit of section 73 (3) and Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. As regard the limitation we find that the issue about taxability on reverse charge basis in respect of service rec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
