9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1101X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Additional Commissioner confirming the demand of service tax for the period from 18.04.2006 to 30.05.2006 has been assailed in this appeal. 2. It transpires that the appellant engaged "overseas agent" to procure export orders and paid commission to them for the services rendered. 3. It is with effect from 18.04.2006 that service tax became payable on the import of services on a reverse charge basis. As the appellant had not paid the service tax, the department issued a show cause notice to the appellant proposing to demand service tax. 4. The Additional Commissioner, by order dated 25.03.2013, found that the appellant failed to produce any evidence to show that payments which received during April and May, 2006 were for the services r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce number and date, shipping bill number and date, let export date. Further appellants have got the particulars mentioned in above invoice wise statement duly certified by Chartered Accountant. The same is enclosed and marked as Annexure-3, A perusal of all above shows it beyond doubt: that impugned services were rendered and received prior to 18,4.2006 and therefore no service tax is payable on the same even though payment of corresponding commission has been remitted on or after 18.4.06. The basic work assigned to the foreign agent is to procure orders for export of goods, The services of foreign agent gets completed on export of corresponding goods. Since export date of corresponding goods is falling prior to 18.4.06, as is apparent from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stries Ltd. and Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, LTU, Mumbai [2016 (44) S.T.R. 82(Tri.-Mumbai)], in connection with the service tax on reverse charge mechanism under "intellectual property services" made the following observations: "11. In so far as the agreement with Investa Technologies S.A.R.L. is concerned the same was entered into on 14-8-2004, prior to IPR services being brought into the net of service tax w.e.f. 10-9-2004. The service itself having been rendered prior to the introduction of the levy, the mere fact that payments for the same were made on a staggered basis over a period of time cannot be a ground for levying service tax merely with reference to the date on which payments were being made. We find that d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e present case, the relevant period is April, 2003 to September, 2003. Therefore, none of the above provisions apply. Moreover, even Rule 4(a)(i) of the Point of Taxation Rules 2011 is not applicable because those Rules came into effect on 1-3-2011. 7. In the absence of any Rules, we will have to examine as to what is the taxable event. The taxable event as per the Finance Act, 1994 is the providing of the taxable service. In the present case, we find that not only were the services admittedly provided prior of 14-5-2003 but also the bills have been raised prior to 14-5-2003. The only thing that happened after 14-5-2003 was that the payments were received after that date. That, in our view would not change the date on which the taxable ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
