TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... : ST/ 1602/2011 The appeal is against order dated 20-07-2011 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-ll. Demand of Rs. 1,15,51,091/- towards service tax payable on reverse charge basis in respect of various services like Management & Business Consultant Service, Consulting Engineering Service etc received by the appellant from non-resident associate group company situated in Netherland was made by notice dated 21-10-2010. The period of/ demand is 2005-06 to 2007-08. The impugned order confirmed the demand and imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. Appeal No. : ST/294/2011 The appeal is against order dated 20-07-2011 of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-ll. Demand of Rs. 1,50,89,434/- tow....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14 set aside the demand of service tax on overseas commissioner paid by appellants for the period 09.07.2004 to 31.03.2006 following the above decision of Bombay High Court. As such we find no merit in the impugned orders upholding demand of service tax for the period prior to 18.04.2006. Service Tax on reverse charge basis is payable effective from 18.04.2006 with the introduction Section 66A in the Finance Act, 1994. We also consider that appellant's plea against imposition of penalties in these cases has merits. There is no mala-fide intend brought out in non-payment of service tax in the facts and circumstances of the case. The legal position on service tax liability on reverse charge basis involving foreign provider of service has ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the appellants was credit of service tax paid by themselves on "banking and financial services" received from M/s ICICI Bank Ltd. By virtue of the relevant legal provisions, the appellants were liable to pay such tax. Further, they were entitled to avail credit of such tax and utilize the same for payment of duty on their final products." The impugned orders notes the above decision but holds that the same has not attained finality in view pending appeal by department. We are not able to appreciate the said reasoning of the Commissioner. Here, in the present case, the appellants discharged service tax under TR 6 Challans. The payment is as service recipient and not as provider of service. Tribunal in Nestle India Ltd 2008 (223) ELT 309 (....