9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of software related services . At para 13 of the return particulars in respect of providing of services is reported. The appellant has responded with a Yes to having entered into international transactions in respect of services. The dispute is about the amounts received from the branch shown under the On-site development of software related services in the books of account of CTS. It is found that this issue stated in the findings of the impugned order is a secondary one. The main issue before the lower authority stems from whether the service rendered in the USA as seen in the Income Tax Return was rendered by the appellant to its overseas branch as alleged in the SCN. It has been satisfactorily demonstrated by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Appeal allowed. - Service Tax Appeal No. 41665 of 2018 - Final Order No. 40529/2023 - Dated:- 28-6-2023 - Hon ble Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Hon ble Shri M. Ajit Kumar, Member (Technical) Shri Rajaram Ramanan, Chartered Accountant for the Appellant Shri M. Ambe, DC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Per M. Ajit Kumar, This is an appeal filed by M/s. Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited (herein after referred to as CTS India) against Order in Original No. 51/2018 CHN. GST dated 27.3.2018, passed by the Principal Commissioner of GST Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate. 2. The facts of the case area that during the course of audit by the officers of GST and Central Exci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been filed by the respondent-department. 4. We have heard Shri Rajaram Ramanan, learned Chartered Accountant for the appellant and Shri M. Ambe, learned AR for the Revenue. 5. The learned consultant Shri Rajaram Ramanan appearing for the appellant submitted that the entire amount disclosed in the Income Tax Returns Form 3CEB reflects provision of onsite support service rendered by the US branch office of the appellant (CTS USA) to its associated enterprise situated outside India and hence ought not to be held as an exempt service rendered by the appellant (CTS India). He reiterated that the said amount earned by their US branch office for their services gets consolidated in the appellant s books of accounts and in all its statutory ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . DSP Merrill Lynch Limited Vs. CCE, Mumbai - 2016 (2) TMI 221 - CESTAT MUMBAI b. Kedarnath Jute Manufacturing Company Limited Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Calcutta - 1971 (8) TMI 10 SC c. CCE vs. Mayfair Resorts, NHI, Jalandhar 2011(3) TMI 175 P H HC d. Luit Developers P. Ltd. vs. CCE, Dibrugarh 2022(3) TMI 50 CESTAT Kol. e. Quest Engineers Consultant Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of CGST C.Ex. 2021(10) TMI 96 CESTAT Allh. f. Raj Mohan vs. Commissioner of CGST, Panchkula 2022(8) TMI 832 CESTAT Chandigarh He prayed that the Hon ble Tribunal may set aside the impugned order and render justice. 7. We have heard learned AR Shri M. Ambe for the Revenue. He stated that it was evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g them an option as provided under Rule 6(3)(ii) of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. (c) whether the invocation of extended period of limitation is warranted when the unit has been audited in the past and no discrepancy noticed. 9. It is seen from the Income Tax returns in Form 3CEB for the Financial Year 2012 13, that Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited US branch is carrying out on-site development of software related services . At para 13 of the return particulars in respect of providing of services is reported. The appellant has responded with a Yes to having entered into international transactions in respect of services. The tabular column below the para shows that one of the international transaction was with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts branch and payment of tax by the branch in the concerned country. The dispute is about the amounts received from the branch shown under the On-site development of software related services in the books of account of CTS. We find that this issue stated in the findings of the impugned order is a secondary one. The main issue before the lower authority stems from whether the service rendered in the USA as seen in the Income Tax Return was rendered by the appellant to its overseas branch as alleged in the SCN. It has been satisfactorily demonstrated by the appellant that it was CTS USA who has rendered service to their associated enterprise in USA and received the payment for it in USA for the amount declared in the Income Tax Form 3CEB. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
