9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 584X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mount equal to six per cent of the value of exempted services provided by them, as per Rule 6(3)(i) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004. HELD THAT:- The issue has been considered by the Tribunal in the appellant s own case and has set aside the demand M/S. COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE [ 2023 (7) TMI 62 - CESTAT CHENNAI] holding that There is no allegation in the Show Cause Notice that CTS USA was only a front company for services rendered by CTS India in the USA. This being so no taxable service has been rendered by CTS India in USA with respect to the impugned figures disclosed in their Income Tax Form 3CEB for the Financial Year 2012-13 and 2013-14. This entry was the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eturns in Form 3CEB filed by appellants under Sec 92E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Financial Years 2012-13 and 2013-14, that they had declared the rendering of 'On-site Development of Software related Services' to their Branch Office located in the USA and have received Rs. 75,82,95,595/-, Rs. 56,80,90,136/- and Rs. 82,90,13,188/- during the financial years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively from their U.S Branch Office, for these services. In as much as- a. The said services provided by the GTS to their U S. Branch are in the nature of 'exempted services' in terms of Rules 2(e) and 6(8) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, b. Appellants had availed Cenvat credit of Service Tax paid on common input services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties. Aggrieved by such order of confirmation of demand, for the period April 2015 to March 2017 the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 7. The learned consultant Shri Rajaram explained that the demand raised cannot sustain as there is no services provided by the appellant, to the overseas branch. 8.1 The Impugned Order at Para 9 (at Pg. 25 of the appeal paperbook) has relied upon a declaration made in the Form 3CEB (Report from an accountant on related party transactions under the Income-Tax law) to conclude that there were transactions between the Appellant and its overseas branch office in the United States of America Further, the Impugned Order alleges the said transacti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly for reporting purposes, being a mandatory requirement. 7.6 It is submitted that, when no service income is earned by the Appellant from the overseas branch office, the question of any exempt services and the consequent requirement for reversal of CENVAT does not arise. 7.7 The Ld. Counsel submitted that the very same issue came up for consideration before the Tribunal in the appellant s own case in Appeal No. ST/41665/2018. The Tribunal vide Final Order 40529 /2023 dated 28.6.2023 analyzed the entire issue and held that the demand cannot sustain. The learned consultant prayed that the appeal may be allowed. 7.8 The learned AR Shri Anoop Singh appeared and argued for the department. The finding in the impugned order was reiterate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... olidated in the appellants books of account as it is a part of statutory reporting. A similar situation prevailed during the Financial Year 2013-14. He has referred to the table showing the debit note/ invoice wise amount involved, as enclosed with their appeal paper book along with copies of the invoices. Reference was made to the debit note / Invoice, which shows that the amounts pertain to services rendered by CTS USA to their customers (associated enterprises). Copies of the bank statements enclosed also show that the US customer has made payment to CTS at W. Burr Boulevard in the USA. A reconciliation of amounts as per Financials, Form 3CEB and US IT Returns was produced which was shown to tally. We find that the impugned order at para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rendered by the appellant in USA, which is exigible to tax under the Finance Act 1994, all charges under the said Act against the appellant must fail. 10. We find that the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Linde Engineering (supra) pertains to a case where Linde India was providing service to its parent company Linde Germany. The facts in this case show that CTS USA and not CTS India which was supplying services and that too to a foreign customer and hence the facts are distinguished and do not support Revenue's stand. Since the matter is decided in favor of the appellant on merits, the judgments cited by them are not discussed. 11. Based on the discussions above, we find that the main charge against the appellant fai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
