TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (3) TMI 943
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e in the present appeal relates to the service tax liability of the appellant in connection with services received while availing commercial loans and buyer's credit in the form of external commercial borrowing from foreign banks. Based on certain investigations carried out by the officers of DGCEI with reference to possible non-payment of service tax by the appellant, proceedings were initiated against them. The appellants have paid service tax amount of Rs. 23,61,508/- during the course of investigation. The same is not being disputed in the present appeal. The appellant is contesting only the service tax liability of Rs. 2,74,880/- demanded towards payment of advisory fee of Rs. 22,45,750/- to M/s ABN Amro Bank, New Delhi. The second iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../-. In such situation, there is no liability on the appellant to pay any service tax in terms of Section 66A as ABN, Singapore is having a branch in India and the transaction is carried out through the Indian branch, there is no liability on the appellant to pay service tax as recipient of service. Section 66A has no application in such situation. ABN India has in fact charged service tax on advisory fee paid by the appellant. On the second issue, the learned Counsel submitted that the appellants have entered into an agreement with TD Bank for availing buyer's credit in connection with purchase of equipment to be supplied by a foreign company. In terms of the said agreement, the total term loan includes two components - buyer's credit in fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... time bar. He submitted that the whole question of liability to pay service tax on reverse charge basis was settled only after the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Indian National Shipowners Association vs. Union of India reported in 2009 (13) S.T.R. 235 (Bom.) as affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2010 (17) S.T.R. J57 (S.C.). In fact, this legal position with reference to Section 66A was finally accepted by CBEC only on 26/09/2011 by way of a circular. As such, there can be no question of demand for extended period and imposition of penalty. The learned Counsel relied on large number of decided cases to support his contention. 4. The learned AR reiterated the findings in the impugned order. He submitted that the app....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rangement it is clear that ABN Amro Bank, India branch as acted on behalf of ABN, Singapore. It is clear from the agreement that ABN Singapore and ABN India are branches of ABN Amro Bank, NV, a registered company located in Amsterdam in Netherland. As the lender is having a representative office in India by way of another branch entity of the bank, no service tax liability arises on the appellant in terms of Section 66A. We also note that service tax invoice has been raised by ABN India to the appellant. We find the confirmation of service tax demand on this ground against the appellant is not legally sustainable. In this connection, we also rely on the decision of Tribunal in Nagarjuna Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. CCE, Puducherry reported in 2....