TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (12) TMI 1572
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 4. The appellant herein had raised an amount as External Commercial Borrowing (ECB) in the form of Convertible Bond during the period from October 2004 to September 2006. In order to raise such ECB, appellant had paid amounts to various entities situated abroad as an amount towards the service rendered. According to Revenue, the amount paid by the appellant to this entities situated abroad is liable to service tax under the reverse charge mechanism. Appellant discharged the service tax liability and contested the show-cause notice. The adjudicating authority after following due process of law, dropped the proceedings initiated by the show-cause notice for the demand of service tax, inter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....udgement of the Tribunal in the case of Tata Steel Ltd. - 2015-TIOL-2464-CESTAT Mum and submit that the Larger Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 18.04.2006 held that any amount paid for banks abroad is taxable and extended period can be invoked as also interest and penalty can be levied. He would draw our attention to the said reported case law and submit that the extended period is a mixed question of facts and law. 7. On consideration of the submissions made by both sides, we find that the adjudicating authority has recorded in the order-in-original that the appellant herein has discharged the service tax liability and has also availed the CENVAT credit of such service tax liability on the amount paid as tax under reverse charge ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....road namely, Lehmann and IFC who acted as the Mandated Lead Arrangers, Facility Agents and lenders in relation to Economic Commercial Borrowings (ECB). The fees paid by the appellant in foreign exchange to the lenders abroad as management fees, facility agent fees and appraisal fees was held to be liable to service tax under the category of 'Banking and other Financial Services' defined under section 65 (12) (a) (ix) read with section 65(105)(zm) in terms of sections 66A and 68 (2] on reverse charge basis as recipient of the taxable service. The demand was confirmed for the period July 07 to Dec 07 under section 73 (1) invoking the extended time period for failure to file ST - 3 returns and failure to pay the service tax by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant is malafide rather than bonafide. According to him penalty is imposable in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Commissioner versus KitPly Industries Ltd. 2011 (267) ELT 289 (SC) = 2011-TIOL- 46-SC-CX. 6. We have carefully gone through the facts of the case and considered the submissions of both sides. It is undisputed that the service tax was paid by the appellant after the issue of the show cause notice and before the passing of the adjudication order. The appellant relies heavily on the judgement cited. Revenue relies on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Kitply Industries (supra). We note that the Apex Court, after considering the Larger Bench decision in the case of Ja....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... alternate scheme for payment of duty. Neither was any scheme misused by the appellant. Therefore clauses (a) and (b) are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Quite apparently, clause (d) too does not apply. In the present situation it is merely a case of applying clause (c) above. The revenue neutral situation comes about in relation to the credit available to the appellant himself and not by way of availability of credit to anyone else. Therefore the case of Jay Yushin Ltd applies in the present situation after considering the guidance drawn by the Supreme Court in the case of KitPly Industries (supra). In this view of the matter, as the entire exercise is revenue neutral we find that mens rea is not established for imposition....