2011 (4) TMI 222

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ts on record, the respondents are engaged in providing the services under the category of Maintenance & Repair Service, Commercial Training & Coaching, Erection, Commissioning & Installation Service, Goods Transport Agency Services and Intellectual Property Service and hold service tax registration.   3. During the course of audit of the said service provider by CERA, it was observed that during the period 2003 and 2004, the service provider had incurred expenditure in foreign currency towards Service charges amounting to Rs. 6,37,350/- and Rs. 14.24.007/- respectively. The service provider accepted the point raised by CERA in respect of Rs. 6,37,350/- during 2003 and deposited service tax along with interest. In respect of Rs. 14.24.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Finance Act, 1994.   4. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued to the said service provider on 06.11.2008 which culminated into an order passed by the original adjudicating authority confirming demand of Rs. 54,792/- under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest and imposition of penalties under sections 76,77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994..   5. On an appeal against the above order of the adjudicating authority, respondents filed an appeal there against before the Commissioner (Appeals), who by following the Hon'ble Bombay High Court decision held in favour of the respondents. For better appreciation, Para 7 of the Commissioner (Appeals) order is reproduced below :-   7. From the impugned order ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in India, but who received services outside India. In that case till Section 66-A was enacted a person liable was the one who rendered the services. In other words, it is only after enactment of Section 66-A that taxable services received from abroad by a person belonging to India are taxed in the hand of the Indian residents. In such case, the Indian recipient of taxable services is deemed to be a service provider. Before enactment of Section 66-A, there was no such provision in the Act and therefore, the respondents had no authority to levy Service Tax on the member of the petitioners-association. Thus in view of the above decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court it becomes clear that reverse charge tax shift mechanism operating under R....