Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2024 (6) TMI 189

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... - reverse charge mechansim - HELD THAT:- The appellant has been working through a network of branch offices located abroad. These branch offices are permanent establishments and not mere representative offices. They provide services to their clients in their own rights, raise invoices, incur expenditure, avail bank facilities, have its own technical and human resources and operate as independent units. They do not claim any reimbursement of expenditure from the Corporate Office. Section 66A(2) of the Finance Act, 1994 reproduced above clearly lays down that permanent establishments in different countries shall be treated as separate persons. Therefore, the services received by these permanent establishments of the appellant abroad cannot be .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ingh, AR Shri S. S. Chattopadhyay , Authorized Representative for the Respondent ORDER [ PER SHRI K. ANPAZHAKAN ] The present appeal has been filed against the impugned Order-in-Original No. 03/Commr/STII/ Kol/2014-15 dated 16.03.2015 passed by the Commissioner of Service Tax-II, Kolkata, wherein the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax of Rs.94,20,145/- along with interest and imposed equal amount of tax as penalty. He also disallowed Cenvat credit amounting to Rs.3,05,60,728/- and ordered of recovery of interest and penalty equal to the credit disallowed. Penalty has also been imposed on Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 7(c) of the Service Tax Rules, 1944. 2. The appellant M/s. R.S. Software (India) Ltd. is .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Show Cause Notice dated 19.04.2013 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs.94,20,154/- and proposing to deny the Cenvat credit of Rs.3,05,57,728/-. The said Notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order and the demands raised in the Notice has been confirmed along with interest and penalty. Aggrieved against the confirmation of the demands, the appellant has filed this appeal. 3. The appellant submits that they are rendering services through a network of branch offices located abroad. These branch offices are permanent establishments and not mere representative offices. They provide services to their clients in their own rights, raise invoices, incur expenditure, avail bank facilities, have its own technical and human resou .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ir clients in their own rights, raise invoices, incur expenditure, avail bank facilities, have its own technical and human resources and operate as independent units. They do not claim any reimbursement of expenditure from the Corporate Office. 6.1. We observe that Section 66A (2) of the Finance Act, 1994 clearly lays down that permanent establishments in different countries shall be treated as separate persons. For the sake of ready reference the said provision is reproduced below: Section 66A (2) Where a person is carrying on a business through a permanent establishment in India and through another permanent establishment in a country other than India, such permanent establishments shall be treated as separate persons for the purposes of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... dingly, we set aside the demand confirmed in the impugned order on this count. Since the demand itself is not sustainable, the question of demanding interest and imposing penalty does not arise. As the demand is not sustainable, no penalty imposable under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 7(c) of the Service Tax Rules, 1944. 7. Regarding, disallowance of Cenvat Credit, we observe that the appellant produced photo copies of the invoices before the adjudicating authority at the time of personal hearing. However, the adjudicating authority rejected those invoices on the ground that they were not authenticated and the invoices were not legible. The appellant now submits that they have the original copies of all the invoices and they .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates