9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 340X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant and their overseas supplier vide agreement No. 2011-175 Simplex sl.Mod.1300, as per Para 6.9 of the said agreement, charges for installation and commissioning provided by the supplier's technician at the place of the appellant, is included in the value of imported machine which was in Indian Rupees was Rs. 1,51,18,866/-. The case of the department is that the appellant have received the service of Erection, Commissioning and Installation Service of the imported machinery and as per the Notification No.1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006, 33% of the total value of import represent the service portion and accordingly on Rs. 49,89,226/- the appellant is required to pay service tax at the rate 12.36% which amounts to Rs. 6,16,668/-. The Adjudica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t sustainable on limitation also. The dispute whatsoever, it was raised by the audit from the appellant's record only and the import of machine was well within the knowledge of the department, hence there is no suppression of facts and the demand is time barred. In support he relies upon the following judgments: (a) Rahil Air Bubbles Pvt. Limited vs. CCE & ST, Rajkot - 2019(11) TMI 565-CESTAT Ahmedabad (b) Final Order No.50639/2017 dated 20.01.2017 passed by the CESTAT, New Delhi in case of M/s. Bhavik Terryab (c) Allengers Medical Systems Limited vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2009(14) STR 235 (Tri.-Del.) (d) CCE, Vapi vs. AlidharaTextool Engineers Pvt. Limited - 2009 (239) 334 (Tri.-Ahmd.) (e) Alidhara Texspin Engineers vs. CCE, Vapi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... service tax under reverse charge mechanism, under Section 66A and Rules thereunder, cannot be demanded. We also agree with the submission of the appellant that there is no suppression of facts as the import of machine was made through Customs channel and customs duty was discharged at the total value, the objection was raised by the audit party from the record of the appellant, therefore there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. The machine was imported in March 2012 whereas the show cause notice was issued invoking extended period on 29.01.2016 therefore, the entire demand is time-barred. 5. On both the issues, the judgments cited by the appellant directly support their case. Therefore, we are of the considered view th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
