Login | Register Now | Contact Us   
 

Finance Bill, 2014 enacted into Finance Act, 2014, Date of Enactment 06.08.2014Budget 2014-15 : Sale of space for advertising has been made taxable except for print media.Budget 2014-15 : Radio Taxis are now taxable.Budget 2014-15 : Education : The definition of Auxiliary Education Services has been scraped.Budget 2014-15 : Works Contract : 2 slab rates prescribed in place of earlier 3 slabs.Budget 2014-15 : E-payment of Service tax is being made mandatory with effect from 01.10.2014.Budget 2014-15 : POPS: Definition of intermediary is being amended to include the intermediary of goods in its scope.

Import of Services
Import of Services

Case Laws Related

  • STO 2013 CESTAT 83
  • Consulting Engineering Service: Services received from abroad prior to 18.4.2006: Not taxable. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 985
  • Import of Service: Liability fixed on recipient of service prior to 18.4.2006 incorrect: Demand set aside. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 615
  • Business Auxiliary Service: Agent appointed abroad for promotion of business: Prior to 18.4.2006 tax not leviable: Demand of ST set aside: Cenvat credit not deniable on the ground that invoices were raised prior to 10.09.2004.

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 487
  • Service Tax: Services received from abroad taxable from 18.4.2006 on reverse charge mechanism: Major part of demand pertaining to prior period set aside: Appellants to pay the remaining demand and claim Cenvat credit. 

  • STO 2012 CESTAT 160
  • Import of Service: Liablity from 18.4.2006: Amount shown as unpaid on 31.3.2006 also claimed to have been received after 18.4.2006 for services received prior to 18.4.2006: Matter remanded.

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 331
  • Service Tax: Tax on commission paid to service provider in foreign country: Demand: The issue involved in this case is whether the respondents are liable to pay Service Tax as recipient of services during the period 26.10.2004 to 26.10.2005 for having paid the amount to a person situated out of India for the services rendered to them.(Para 3). The issue involved in this case is directly addressed by the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association (supra). In view of this, there is no reasons for interfering with the order of the learned Commissioner (A). Appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.(Para 8).

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 335
  • Service Tax:Technical consultancy service: Demand: The period of dispute in this case is from August, 2002 to March, 2004. There is no dispute about the fact that the service received by the appellant from the Foreign Service provider is a taxable service. The point of dispute is as to whether during this period, the appellant as recipient of this service were liable for payment of service tax. In this case, the dispute is for the period from 16.8.2002 when proviso to Rule 6(1) of Service Tax Rules had been deleted and hence judgement of the Apex Court in Kerala State Electricity Board (supra) which is with regard to proviso to rule 6(1) as the same existed prior to 16.8.2002 would not be applicable. As per the settled legal position on the issue, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed.(Para 5) 

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 273
  • Taxability: When the services have been rendered and consumed abroad not taxable Stay granted.

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 284
  • Import of service: Taxability from 18.4.2006.

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 149
  • Service Tax: Online information and database access or retrieval service: Demand: In the present case, the services were received inside the India from the person having his office in India. Section 66-A having been inserted in the Finance Act with effect from 18.4.2006 clearly laying down that recipient of services in India from outside India shall be liable to pay tax, cannot be made applicable retrospectively. There are no merits in the Revenue's contention. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. Stay petition also get disposed off.(Para 6).

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 346
  • Reverse Charge mechanism: From 19.4.2006 it is not material whether foreign service provider has any place of business in India, it is service receiver who has to pay service tax: Arguable case: Partial stay granted.

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 111
  • Service Tax: Tax on commission paid to foreign based Commission Agents to procure export orders: It is established that as recipient, the respondents were not liable to pay Service Tax for the period prior to 18.4.2006, on which date Section 66A was inserted to the Finance Act, 1994. Appeal of the department is devoid of merits and the same is rejected.(Para 5). 

  • STO 2011 CESTAT 233
  • Service Tax: Consulting Engineers Service: Service Received from abroad: Section 66A: When specific charging provisions came to statute book later which was not embedded to Section 68(2) of Finance Act, 1994 following the Apex Court’s Judgement in the case of Martin Lottery reported in STO 2009 SC 857, the appeal of the appellant is allowed. (para 3)

  • STO 2011 Mad 271
  • Service Tax - Tax on recipient of service from abroad - Only with effect from 18.04.2006 - Indian National Shipowners Association followed: the present writ petitions are disposed of holding that the respondents are not entitled to levy service tax on the petitioners upto 17.4.2006, in respect of the services availed by them, as it is clear that Section 66A had been inserted in the Finance Act, 1994, by way of an amendment, by the Finance Act, 2006, only with effect from 18.4.2006, enabling the authorities concerned to levy service tax on the recipients of the taxable service. (Para 5).

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 726
  • Services of Foreign Agent: Services provided to person in foreign country is not taxable on the basis of reverse mechanism before 18.4.2006. 

  • STO 2010 Mad 816
  • Service Tax: Maintainability of writ petition when alternative remedy available: Petitioner has not chosen to give any reply to the impugned show cause notice, instead rushed to this Court with this writ petition. When the petitioner has got alternative remedy, which is efficacious, the writ petition cannot be entertained at all. The petitioner can very well submit his explanation and if any adverse order is passed, he can very well work out his remedy in the manner known to law. In respect of the question as to whether service tax is leviable, it is for the respondent to consider as to how and why the service rendered outside, but received in India is also liable for tax.(Para 6). 

  • STO 2010 Mad 797
  • Service Tax: Validity of the statute: It is first time when the Act was amended and Section 66A was inserted by Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 18-4-2006, the Respondents got legal authority to levy service tax on the recipients of the taxable service. Now, because of the enactment of Section 66A, a person who is resident in India or business in India becomes liable to be levied service tax when he receives service outside India from a person who is non-resident or is from, outside India. Before enactment of Section 66A it is apparent that there was no authority vested by law in the Respondents to levy service tax on a person who is resident in India, but who receives services outside India. In that case till Section 66A was enacted a person liable was the one who rendered the services. In other words, it is only after enactment of Section 66A that taxable services received from abroad by a person belonging to India are taxed in the hands of the Indian residents. In such case, the Indian recipient of the taxable services is deemed to be a service provider. Before enactment of Section 66A, there was no such provision in the Act and therefore, the respondents had no authority to levy service tax on the members of the petitioners-association.(Para 9). Therefore, as per the judgment of Bombay High Court service tax cannot be levied prior to 17-4-2006 and the charge was created only after the introduction to Section 66A of the Finance Act.(Para 10) Writ petitions are allowed. 

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 554
  • Service Tax: Tax liability on the amount paid to persons situated outside India for rendering the services of Market Research and Promotion of the products in foreign countries prior to 18/04/2006: Taxable event: The judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association(supra) and the judgments as cited by the Id. Consultant in the case of CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Bhandari Hosiery Exports Ltd., CST, Bangalore Vs. SKF India Ltd. and in CST, Bangalore Vs. Araco Corporation, clearly settle the law, that provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of the Service Tax Rules cannot be pressed into service for recovery / demand of service tax prior to 18/4/2006 i.e. when the provisions of Rule 66A came into statute.(Para 6). The issue is now squarely covered in favour of the respondents by the dismissal of the Revenue's SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association as reported at 2010(17) S.T.R. 157 (SC). Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Cross-objection is also disposed off.(Para 7). 

  • STO 2010 Mad 806
  • Service Tax: vires of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994: Import of services whether taxable: Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, by a Circular dated 30-6-2010 in F.No. 275/7/2010 CX. 8A, directed the authorities to abide the terms of the Circular for all future assessment. In paragraph Nos. 3 to 5 of the Circular, it was directed as follows :-

    “3. In view of the above the accepted position is that,

    (i) in case of taxable service provided by a non-resident, not having office/establishment in India, and received in India, the service tax liability arises w.e.f. 1-1-2005 on reverse charge basis on the recipient of service in India. Therefore, the overall facts and circumstances of each case needs to be taken into account to determine whether service is received in India or otherwise.

    (ii) in case of taxable service received outside India by a person, who is resident in India or has place of business/business establishment in India, the service tax liability arises w.e.f. 18-4-2006, as is in the case of INSA, where services were received outside India for use in the ships and vessels located outside India.

    5. Accordingly, it may be critically examined in pending disputes as to whether the service was received in India or-outside India and appropriate action may please be taken for resolution of such disputes.”------(Para 3).

    In the light of the Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court reported in 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.) (cited supra) both the Writ Petitions are liable to be rejected. However, the liability of the petitioners has to be worked out only from 18-4-2006.(Para 4). Writ petitions dismissed.
     

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 556
  • Service Tax: Valuation of taxable service: Rule 7 (1) of the Service tax (Determination of Value) Rules, 2006: Rule 7, is specifically applicable for reverse mechanism under Section 66A. It is not in dispute that the amount of service tax demanded is towards the amount paid by the applicant on the traveling and conveyance expenses incurred in connection with the services of engineers for technical assistance and training the personnel. The provisions of rule 7 will apply to this case. The appellant has already discharged the service tax on technical fee charged by the foreign company. In view of this, the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts herein above is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal.(Para 6). 

  • STO 2010 CESTAT 595
  • Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Services' as a recipient of taxable services: Taxable event: In this case, for the period 7/2003 to 03/2006, the appellant had paid an amount of 12% sales value as commission to the people who were non-resident in India or were residing outside India, as an amount payable to them for rendering the services on behalf of the appellants therefore,the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of India National Ship Owners Association (supra) squarely covers the issue in favour of the assessee, as the provisions of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994, provides for discharge of service tax liability by recipient of services, in reverse charge mechanism will be applicable with effect from 18.4.2006. Hon'ble High Court had in judgment considered the Notification No. 36/2004 and had also considered the provisions of Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994.(Para 6,7). 

    Issue of show cause notice: Once an adjudication order is passed on the subject matter, the issuance of another show-cause notice by the same authority for enhancement of penalty does not arise, and Revenue should have taken recourse to other options available in the statute.(Para 8). Appeals are disposed off.(Para 9).
     

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1465
  • Service Tax: Consulting Engineer: Payment of technical know-how fees and royalty to foreign company: Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of India National Shipowners Association Vs Union of [2009 (13) S.T.R 235 (Bom.)] held that recipient in India is liable to service tax for service received from abroad only from 18.04.2006 after enactment of Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994. In the present case the assessee received service from the foreign company prior to 18.04.2006 and the demand of tax and penalties are not sustainable.(Para 3).

    Revenue appeal dismissed.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1633
  • Service Tax: Consulting Engineer Services, from 16.08.2002 to 31.03.2005: Scope and liability: The issue involved in this case is whether during the relevant period i.e. 16.08.2002 to 31.03.2005, the appellant is liable to discharge the service tax liability as a recipient of the services. It is undisputed that the service provider is conducting business from outside India having office at his place of business and does not have an office in India. It is also undisputed that the appellant had paid the amount/royalty to said service provider. The issue is no more res-integra as the issue is squarely settled by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. UOI – STO 2009 Bom 78 and by the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Unitech Ltd . Vs. CST, Delhi - STO 2009 Del 877. As the Hon'ble High Courts held that the service tax liability on the recipient of the services will be w.e.f. only 18.04.2006 the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.(Para 6,7).

    Appeal allowed.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1557
  • Service Tax: Service provided by person from outside India having no office in India: Liability: The person providing services to the assessees herein is situated outside India and has no office in India. The period of demand of tax is 2003-04. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble, Bombay High Court in Indian National Ship Owners Association Vs Union of India [STO 2009 Bom 78 holding that recipient in India is liable to service tax for services from abroad only with effect from 18.04.2006 when Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 was enacted, is squarely attracted to the facts of the present case(Para 1).

    Appeal allowed.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1528
  • Service Tax: Levy of service tax on services received in India from outside India: Business Auxiliary Service: The period in dispute is prior to 18.04.06, when Section 66A was introduced in the Finance Act to provide for levy of service tax on services received in India from a service provider outside India. Prima facie the applicants have made out a strong case for waiver in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association Vs. UOI - 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.) = STO 2009 Bom 78, which has been followed in the case of Fifth Avenue Vs. CST, Chennai - 2009 (15) STR 387 (Tri.-Chen.) = STO 2009 CESTAT 1725 and Pashupati Spg. & Wvg. Mills Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2009 (15) STR 274 (Tri.-Del.) = STO 2009 CESTAT 559.(Para 2).

    Stay granted.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1518
  • Service Tax: Agreement entered into by the Applicant with the foreign service provider: Scope and liability: Only w.e.f. 18.04.2006 with the introduction of Section 66A of the Finance Act and amendment in the Rules the recipient of service is liable to pay the Service Tax. The present demands are in respect of the period earlier to 18.04.2006. The contention is that in the present agreement there is no such clause where the liability is shifted to the present Applicant. Tribunal in the case of JCB India Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi STO 2008 CESTAT 756 relied upon by the Applicant after considering the decisions of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board vs. CCE, Thiruvananthapuram - STO 2007 SC 1169 and the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the tax liability being a creature of statute and borne by statutory provisions cannot be determined or apportioned based on agreement entered between the private parties. In the present case demands is prior to 18.04.2006 from the date when the service recipient is made liable to pay Service Tax. In view of the decision of the Tribunal in the case of JCB India Ltd. There is merit in the contention of the Applicant.(Para 2,4).

    Stay granted.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1513
  • Service Tax: Consulting Engineer' for the period 2002-03: Received technical know-how from their principals abroad and paid consideration towards the same: Scope and liability: Commissioner (Appeals) vacated the demand of service tax following judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association Vs. Union of India & others, reported in 2008-TIOL-633-HC-MUM-ST wherein the High Court held that the authorities were vested with powers to recover tax on services received from abroad, from the appellants only with effect from 18.4.2006 when specific provisions were enacted in Section 66A of the Finance Act. The impugned service had been received prior to 18.4.2006.(Para 2).

    Revenue appeal dismissed.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1520
  • Service Tax: Scientific and Technical Consultancy Services during the period 16.8.2002 to 31.3.2007: Effective date of liability: The issue involved is the exact date from which the appellants were required to pay service tax on a service received by them from a foreign establishment. The subject matter has been in dispute for long and various benches of the Tribunals have given differing decisions. The Larger Bench of Hon'ble Tribunal in the case of M/s Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur STO 2008 CESTAT 321 held that any service provided by a person residing abroad to any person in India is liable to service tax w.e.f. 01.01.2005. However, recent judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Mumbai in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association versus Union of India, [2008-TIOL-663-HC-MUM-ST] held that Service Tax is payable in such cases only with effect from 18.4.2006. The Hon'ble High Court in the above case had observed as follow: "it appears that it is first time when the Act was amended and Section 66A was inserted by Finance Act 2006 w.e.f. 18.4.2006, the Respondents got legal authority to levy service tax on the recipients of the taxable service. As the service was actually rendered outside India, as per the Hon'ble High Court's decision cited above the appellants are liable to pay service tax from 18.4.2006. Hence the demand for the period prior to 18.4.2006 is set aside.(Para 2).

    Stay granted.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1391
  • Service Tax: Recipient of services from businesses based abroad: Liability: The issue is covered in appellants favour vide the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of the Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. UOI reported in STO 2009 Bom 78.

    Stay granted.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1306
  • Service Tax: Application for ROM: There was no any omission or mistake on the part of the Tribunal while passing this order, since the Larger Bench of the Tribunal has clearly decided that prior to 1.1.05, recipient of service is not liable to pay the service tax. In any case, this point was not even a part of the appeal filed by the Revenue nor was argued. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a mistake apparent from the records.(Para 3,4).

    Application for ROM rejected.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1313
  • Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Service, provided by a service provider not having any office or establishment in India, from an off shore location during period from 9.7.04 to 31.5.05: The issue regarding service tax on the import of service and liability of the Indian service receiver for payment of service tax in respect of the taxable service received from a foreign service provider had been considered at length by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association vs UOI reported in STO 2009 Bom 78 wherein Hon'ble Bombay High Court held that since Section 66A for charging service tax on the service received by a service receiver in India from a off shore service provider not having any office or establishment in India came into effect on 18.4.06, for the period prior to 18.4.06, no service tax can be charged in respect of such import of taxable service.(Para 3).

    Revenue appeal dismissed.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1296
  • Service Tax: Whether the recipient of service by a Foreign Service provider is liable to pay service tax prior to 01.01.2005: The issue stands settled against the Revenue by the decisions of the larger Bench of the Tribunal in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Jaipur [STO 2008 CESTAT 321] holding that the recipient of service provided from outside India is liable to pay service tax only from 01.1.2005 onwards which has been upheld by the apex court in United Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [STO 2009 Del 877].(Para 1,3).

    Revenue appeal rejected.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1355
  • Service Tax: Service tax leviable wef 18-04-2006 on services provided by a person who is non-resident or is from outside India and does not have any office in India: The demand is confirmed against ABB, as recipient of the impugned services, as per Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) of the Rules Rule 2 (1) (d) (iv) authorizes the authorities to recover service tax leviable on services provided by a person who is non-resident or is from outside India and does not have any office in India, from the person receiving such service in India. In the Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. UOI STO 2009 Bom 78 the Hon'ble High Court had held that demand of service tax for the period prior to 18.04.2006 invoking rule 2(1) (d) (iv) of the Rules was not sustainable. (Para 5).

    Period of limitation and revenue neutrality: As regards the demand for the, period 18.04.2006 to June 2006, ABB has taken the ground that had they paid the impugned tax, they could have taken cenvat credit of equal amount. Therefore, there was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade the impugned tax. In such circumstances, longer period could not be invoked to demand service tax. The case law relating to revenue neutrality and limitation dealt with in the judicial authorities cited are to the effect that demanding duty or cenvat credit, as the case may be, resulted in a revenue neutral situation if the assessee was entitled to equal amount of cenvat credit or duty exemption of the same amount as credit taken. There was no reason for the appellant to suppress (liability to excise duty) as it was entitled to have facility of modvat scheme. Extended period of limitation under proviso to Section 11A (1) of the Central Excise Act was not invokable. This ratio was examined by a three member bench of the Supreme Court in CCE, Mumbai Vs. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. - STO 2004 SC 288 The Apex Court held that the observation that the appellant was entitled to get the benefit of modvat scheme, therefore, there was no justifiable reason for appellant to suppress any fact which appeared in the Supreme Court's decision in Amco Batteries Ltd. Vs. CCE STO 2003 SC 128 had to be read in the context of facts and circumstances noticed in earlier paragraphs, in addition to assessee being entitled to benefit of modvat credit. It was held that availability of modvat credit to an assessee by itself was not conclusive or decisive consideration it may be one of the relevant considerations for deciding applicability of proviso to Section 11A (1) of Central Excise Act, 1944. The above ratio applies equally to invocation of larger period for demand of service tax not paid under Section 73(1) of the Act. Since we cannot hold that ABB's liability to tax on the services it received from foreign companies during the period April, 2006 to June, 2006 was not known to it in view of the express provisions contained in Section 66A of the Act and Rule, 2 (1) (d) (iv), the plea of limitation on the ground of revenue neutrality advanced cannot be accepted. It has to be held that ABB chose not to pay tax deliberately. However, since the department was aware of the nature of the impugned transactions as early as in July 2005 from the agreements furnished and tax paid from the ST 3 returns periodically filed by ABB as an assessee providing taxable services, the claim that show cause notice dated 05.12.2007 could not have validly invoked longer period of limitation has to be sustained. In the circumstances the entire demand not sustainable and consequently the demand of interest as well as the penalty imposed.(Para 6, 8,9).

    appeal allowed.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1354
  • Service Tax: Intellectual Property Services and Business auxiliary service: Service providers being non-resident and do not have office in India, service tax liability needs to be discharged by the service receiver/ appellant: Scope: The services were received by the appellants from the persons who are nonresident or from outside India. The service tax liability on the recipient of the services would come into effect only from 18.04.06 when section 66A was brought into Finance Act. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs UOI STO 2009 Bom 78 and Unitech Ltd Vs CST Delhi (2008-TIOL-1510-CESTAT- Del) are supportive. Identical view was taken by the larger bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd., Vs CCE (2008 (11) STR 931).(Para 6,8).

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1236
  • Service Tax: Service of technical information and assistance during the period 1.4.98 to 30.6.05: Scope and liability: Judgment of the Hon'ble Court of Bombay in the case of Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (13) STR 233 (Bom.) the recipient of certain category of services were not liable to tax prior to 18.4.06. When the services were received from abroad before such date, in absence of statutory provision, the Adjudication made for levy of Service Tax on the Appellants are unsustainable. Before Section 66A was enacted there was no authority under law to realise levy of service tax from a person who is recipient in India receiving certain service from outside India. (Para 2,4).

    Revenue appeals dismissed.
     

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 1279
  • Service Tax: Liability on commission paid to agents on export orders during 1/1/2005 to 30/11/2005: The reverse charge mechanism came into effect only from 18/4/2006 with the introduction of Section 66(A) of the Finance Act, 1994 for services rendered outside India. The period of dispute in this case is from 1/1/2005 to 30/11/2005 and this issue is squarely covered by the following decisions:- a. Indian National Shipowners Association Vs. UOI &ors. [2009(13) STR235(Bom.)] b. Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd. Vs. CCE, Vadodara STO 2007 CESTAT 219 c. Anant Spinning Mills Vs. CCE, Bhopal [Final Order No. ST/355/2008 CU [DB] dt. 12/11/2008] d. CCE, Ludhiana Vs. Bandari Hosiery, Exports Ltd. [2008-TIOL-604-CESTAT-DEL]. The issue is squarely covered by the above mentioned decisions including the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay(Para 2).

    Appeal allowed.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 310
  • Service Tax: Amount paid by the assessee as royalty to a foreign based company at England, who had no office at India for the period March 2002 to February 2004: The issue has already been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited vs. CCE, Jaipur reported in STO 2008 CESTAT 321. It has been held that taxable service rendered by a non-resident or from outside India, who does not have any office in India, having been specified as 'taxable service' with effect from 1.1.2005, under Notification No. 36/2004. Therefore, demand of tax and penalties are not sustainable prior to 1.1.2005. (Para 4,5).

    Revenue appeal rejected.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 706
  • Service Tax: Service Tax on the services received in India from abroad: Scope and liability: The issue is in respect of the demand of Service Tax on the services received in India from abroad. The period involved is from August, 2002 to June, 2006. The learned Advocate stated that only w.e.f. 18.04.2006 the recipients in India of services from abroad are liable to discharge Service Tax liability in view of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. This is the ratio of the decision in the case of Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd. Vs. CCE & C, Vadodara-Il - STO 2007 CESTAT 219 and the latest decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Indian National Ship Owners Association vs. UOI STO 2009 Bom 78.(Para 3,6).

    Stay granted.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 383
  • Demand: Stay: Services received from abroad: Liability of service recipient prior to 18.04.2006: the recipients in India of services from abroad are liable to discharge Service Tax liability in view of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 from 18.04.2006 : Pre deposit waived.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 353
  • Service Tax: Rejection of refund claim: Dispute is for the period January,2004 to December, 2004 in respect of service received by them from Non-resident Engineering Consultant and payment were made thereon: The issue has already been decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur, reported in STO 2008 CESTAT 321, wherein it was held that, the taxable service provided by a non-resident or from outside India, who does not have any office in India, having been specified as 'taxable service' with effect from 1.1.2005, under Notification No. 36/2004, recipient of such service e could not be held liable for paying service tax prior to 1-1-2005 notwithstanding the amendment in Rule 2(1) of the Service Tax Rules under Notification No. 12/2004. Refund may be granted, after considering the question of principle of unjust enrichment(Para 2,3).

    Appeal allowed.

  • STO 2009 CESTAT 368
  • Service Tax: Sales commission paid to foreign based company in respect of goods exported from 1.1.2005 to 31.12.2005: Scope: Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. - STO 2008 CESTAT 321 held that: service recipient of the Consultant Engineer provided from outside India became liable to pay service tax not prior to 1.1.2005 in view of amendment of Service Tax Rules. The Tribunal in the case of Foster Wheeler Energy Ltd. vs. C.C.Ex. & Cus. , Vadodara II - STO 2007 CESTAT 219 held that in view of insertion of 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 with effect from 18.4.06 and the Board Circular the offshore services provided are not taxable prior to 18th April, 2006.(Para 4,6).

    Appeal allowed.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 567
  • Service Tax: Receiving the service of foreign based commission agents in respect of goods being exported : Scope and liability: The respondents are paying commission to foreign based commission agents in respect of goods being exported. The foreign based commission agent is booking order on behalf of the appellant and goods were supplied from India. The ratio of the Hindustan Zinc Ltd. vs CCE reported in STO 2008 CESTAT 321  is fully applicable on the facts of the case, the Tribunal held that taxable service provided by non-resident from outside India who does not have any office in India, having been specified as taxable service w.e.f. 1.1.05 and recipient of such service could not be held liable for paying service tax prior to 1.1.05. In the present case, the period of dispute is 9.7.04 to 31.3.05. In these circumstances, the matter requires for reconsideration.(Para 5).

    Appeal disposed of by way of remand.
     

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 536
  • Service Tax: Recipient of consulting engineer's service: Refund: The case is already covered in favour of the appellants by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. CCE STO 2008 CESTAT 321, wherein it was held that any taxable service provided by a non-resident from outside India, who did not have any office in India, was not taxable in the hands of the recipient in India prior to 1/1/2005. (Para 3).

    Appeal allowed.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 555
  • Service Tax: Receipt of consulting engineering service from outside India: Period from 16.8.2002 to 31.3.2003 and from February 2003 to September 2003 : Scope: Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc. Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2008 (87) RLT 317 held that taxable service provided by a non-resident or is from outside India, who does not have any office in India, having been specified as taxable service with effect from 1.1.2005, under Notification No. 36/2004, recipient of such service could not be held liable for paying Service Tax prior to 1.1.2005. Further, the Tribunal in the case of M/s JCB India Ltd. Vs. CST vide Final Order No. ST/208/08 dated 6.8.08 after taking into consideration the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of CCE Vs. Kerala State Electricity Board reported in STO 2006 Ker 212 decided issue in favour of the appellant. There is nothing in the judgment to suggest that the question as to whether service recipient was liable to pay service tax prior to 1.1.2005, (Para 3,4).

    Appeal allowed.

     

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 905
  • Service Tax: Applicant as recipient of services whereas provider of service is outside India: Demand: Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. CCE reported in 2008 (87) RLT 317 held that recipient of taxable service provided by a non-resident or from outside India who does not have any office in India is liable to pay Service Tax with effect from 1.1.2005.(Para 1).

    Pre-deposit waived, stay allowed.
     

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 347
  • Service Tax: Consulting engineering service received from foreign based company: Refund: The issue as to who shall pay the service tax in respect of services received from foreign firms has been decided by the Larger Bench in the case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. STO 2008 CESTAT 321 wherein it has been held that only from 1.1.2005 after issue of notification under section 66A, specifying the services for which the recipients are required to pay the service tax, the liability to pay service tax shall rest on the recipient.(Para 4).

    Pre-deposit waived, stay allowed.
     

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 908
  • Service Tax: Taxable service provided by a non-resident or from outside India: Liability: The Larger Bench of the Tribunal in case of Hindustan Zinc Ltd. Vs. CCE, Jaipur report in 2008 (87) RLT 317 (CESTAT - LB) approved the Single Member decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aditya Cements (Supra). The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- "The upshot of the above discussion is that the taxable service provided by a non-resident or from outside India, who does not have any office in India, having been specified as 'taxable service' with effect from 1.1.2005, under Notification No 36/2004, recipient of such service could not be held liable for paying service tax prior to 1.1.2005 notwithstanding the amendment in Rule 2 (1) (d) of the Service Tax Rules under Notification No. 12/2002.(Para 2).

    Revenue appeal rejected.

  • STO 2008 CESTAT 605
  • Consulting Engineer Service: Service received from abroad: Recipient of consulting engineer service from outside India is not liable to pay service tax prior to 01.01.2005.

     
     

    www.centralexciseonline.com

     


    www.taxolegal.com


    Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


    www.customsindiaonline.com
    Home | Mission | Contact Us | Acknowledgements © 2009 Copyrights, All Rights Reserved. 
    Disclaimer Though all efforts have been made to reproduce the order and other contents correctly, the access and circulation is subject to the condition that EASY SERVICETAXONLINE DOT COM PRIVATE LIMITED is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone due to any mistake/error/omissions. The Site is constantly updated and any or all of the contents are liable to be modified, altered, deleted or replaced. EASY SERVICETAXONLINE DOT COM PRIVATE LIMITED is not responsible/liable for any loss or damage caused to anyone whether directly or indirectly  due to any modification , alteration, addition, deletion or replacement of any of the contents.

    Copyright : Reproduction of news articles, photos, or any other content in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of  EASY SERVICETAXONLINE DOT COM PRIVATE LIMITED is prohibited.Do not copy contents of this site . All pages are protected by COPYSCAPE. Plagiarism will be detected by COPYSCAPE.