9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 235X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reign Currency, for availing External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) - HELD THAT:- It is a fact on record that prior to 18.04.2006 the service tax was not payable by the appellant for the loan obtained by them from foreign bankers, who are not having their registered office in India under Reverse Charge Mechanism as held by the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association [ 2008 (12) TMI 41 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ], therefore, the tax liability of Rs.19,09,550/- was not sustainable against the appellant. Accordingly, the same is set aside. Legal charges - HELD THAT:- The taxability on legal charges came into effect form 01.09.2009 and the said legal charges has been paid by the appellant prior to that. In that ci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ting through its offshore Banking unit having its place of business at Plot No.8, Block-2, SEEPZ++, SEEPZ SEZ, Andheri (E), Mumbai, ICICI Bank, Singapore Branch, 9, Raffles Place, # 50-01 Republic Plaza, Singapore- 048619 and State Bank of India acting through its Bahrain offshore Banking unit, 9th Floor, Bahrain Towers, Government Avenue, Manama, Kingdom of Bahrain against execution of following Facility Agreements.:- (i) Facility Agreement dated 31.01.2006 for USD 7 Million; (ii) Facility Agreement dated 06.04.2006 for USD 23 Million; (iii) Facility Agreement dated 25.08.2006 for USD 10 Million and (iv) Facility Agreement dated 09.12.2006 for USD 16.5 Million 3. In respect of ECB obtained from SBI Bahrain Offshore Banking unit, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned after 18.04.2006. They admitted their tax liability and paid the same. After investigation, a show cause notice was issued to the appellant to demand service tax for loan of US Doller two crores and thirty lakhs equivalent to amount of fees paid as Rs.1,00,57,900/- for which total tax liability arrived at Rs.55,32,010/-. The show cause notice was adjudicated, demand of service tax was confirmed and amount already paid has been appropriated, but penalty equivalent to demand of service tax was confirmed. Against the said order, the appellant is before us. 4. The Ld.Counsel for the appellant submits that in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association v. Union of India [2009 (13) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, we hold that the tax liability of Rs.19,09,550/- was not sustainable against the appellant. Accordingly, the same is set aside. 9. With regard to legal charges, we find that the taxability on legal charges came into effect form 01.09.2009 and the said legal charges has been paid by the appellant prior to that. In that circumstances, no service tax is payable by the appellant for legal services received under Reverse Charge Mechanism. 10. With regard to rest of the demand, the appellant has admitted their liable and paid immediately when it is pointed out to the appellant during the course of investigation. 11. As admittedly, demand has been paid by the appellant and remaining demand is not payable by the appellant, in that circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
