TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 393
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ance or Repair Service and Management Consultancy Service from foreign companies. Such services were also received by group companies of ABB located abroad. The impugned order confirmed demand of service tax and education cess totalling Rs. 1,49,65,179 (Rupees One crore forty nine lakhs sixty five thousand one hundred and seventy nine only) against the appellant and applicable interest for the delay in payment of the tax. Vide the impugned order, equal amount of penalty was imposed on ABB under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 (the Act) and also penalty at the rate of Rs. 200 per day under section 76 of the Act. The appellant paid an amount of Rs. 80,97,088 towards the liability found which the Commissioner appropriated vide the impugned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccurred only on the insertion of section 66A of the Act on 18-4-2006 by virtue of the Finance Act, 2006. 3. As regards the demand for the period 18-4-2006 to June 2006, the appellant submitted that the show-cause notice basic to the proceedings had been issued in December 2007 after the expiry of the normal period of limitation of one year. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the assessee was entitled to avail Cenvat credit of whatever service tax was paid. This claim was not disputed by the Commissioner. Payment of impugned demand of service tax hence would entail a revenue neutral situation. In the circumstances, extended period of limitation could not be validly invoked. He relied on the ratio of various judgments in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction 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 cases, the Indian recipient of the taxable services is deemed to be a service provider...." (p. 224) Appellants in the instant case had received BAS from commission agents based abroad mostly prior to 18-4-2006. There were no provisions in the Act to tax the appellants for these services. Therefore demands on this account for the period prior to 18-4-2006 have to fail. In view of the above ratio, demand for the period prior to 18-4-2006 is held to be not sustainable. 6. A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the period April, 2006 to June, 2006. 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 invocable. We note that this ratio was examined by a three Member Bench of the Supreme Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd.'s case (supra). The Apex Cour....