TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellate Tribunal rules service tax liability only on service provider, not authorized receiver</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NOIDA Versus MOTHERSON AUTO COMPONENT ENGG. LTD.</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi ruled in a case concerning liability for service tax payment under a collaboration agreement with a foreign ... Service tax Issues: Liability for service tax payment under collaboration agreement; Interpretation of relevant service tax rules.In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi dealt with the issue of liability for service tax payment under a collaboration agreement between the respondents and a foreign service provider. The respondents received consulting engineering services from a German company and paid technical know-how fees for the services rendered. The service tax on these payments was not paid by either party, leading to a show cause notice for recovery of service tax and imposition of penalties. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed the demand for service tax and penalties, which was challenged by the respondents before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order, citing the period of dispute being prior to the amendment in the service tax rules in August 2002, which made the service tax receiver liable to pay tax.Upon hearing both sides, the Tribunal considered the collaboration agreement's Clause 4.07, which stated that the licensee (respondents) shall deduct tax from payments to be made. The department argued that this clause made the respondents liable for service tax payment as they were authorized by the service provider. However, the Tribunal disagreed, noting that during the relevant period, it was only the service provider who was liable to pay service tax, not any authorized person or the service receiver. Therefore, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, stating that there was no merit in the department's argument and rejected the appeal. The judgment emphasized the clear language of the service tax rules during the relevant period, which did not impose liability on the service receiver authorized by the service provider.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
