TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 313
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant and Detailed Engineering of Reformer Package to IOCL in the form of technical documentation. The activities were performed outside India and the appellant had provided the technical information to the officials of IOCL at their office in Denmark only. The appellant was entitled for a lump sum amount for "supply, delivery and transport of know-how of process package", "supply and delivery of detailed engineering of reformer package", "supply of supervision services", supplying delivery and transfer of PSA Unit know-how and PSA unit process package and training. No amount was received by it towards "supervision service" and "theoretical and practical training". 2. The appellant received two identical show-cause notices dated 25-4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the case of the appellant, no amount was received for technical assistance in India. Therefore, the activities of the appellant were not taxable in the first place. (ii) Under the agreement (Clause 4.7.3 - Page 88 - of the Appeal Memo), IOCL was required to pay service tax. The Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. CCE [2007] 11 STT 487, has held that, where the liability to pay service tax is on the Indian company, and the foreign company rendering the service does not have any office in India, the tax was payable by the Indian company and not by the foreign company. The appellant is not having any office in India. Therefore, it is not required to pay service tax. (iii) The services have been rendered outside I....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellants' contentions on the ground which has no legal basis. (viii) There is no justification for levy of any penalty on the appellants. 5. The learned DR on behalf of the revenue relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of B.E. Gelb Consultancy Services v. CCE [2009] 19 STT 61 (Chennai - CESTAT) in support of his contention that transfer of technical know-how and training of staff by foreign service provider and know-how transfer to Indian client by e-mail would amount to providing of services in India. Further he relied upon the decisions of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE v. BSBK (P.) Ltd. 2010 (253) ELT 522 (New Delhi -CESTAT) in support of his contention that the contract between ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....him should be paid by such person or on his behalf by any other person authorized by him should submit to the Commissioner of Central Excise in whose jurisdiction the taxable services have been rendered by him a return containing specific details with necessary enclosures. Such returns along with a demand draft have to be submitted within a period of 30 days from the date of raising the bill on the client for the taxable services rendered. 13. We may furthermore notice that in terms of the proviso appended to sub- rule (1) of Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, it is provided that in case of a person who was a non-resident or was from outside India and who did not have any office in India, the service tax due on the service rendered by him....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty of the service provider must be considered in the aforementioned context. If Appellant itself was liable for payment of tax, it was also liable for payment of statutory interest thereupon, if the same had not been deposited within the time stipulated by the statute. The liability to pay tax was not on the foreign company. Only on default on the part of the appellant the interest was leviable. Appellant was clearly liable therefor. In other words, the liability being that of the appellant, it must accept the liability of payment of interest leviable thereupon in terms of statute occasioned by the breach on its part to deposit the amount of tax within the prescribed time. 17. Proviso appended to Rule 6 which has been inserted with ....