2015 (6) TMI 1141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...., the Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat allowed the amalgamation of Associated Transrail Structures Pvt Ltd. with Gammon India Ltd. (appellant) w.e.f. 1.4.2008. The appellant sells its products both in DTA as well as in the foreign countries. For promoting sales, the appellant have appointed Commission Agents in the country to which exports are made. Such commission agents did not have any office in India. The provisions of Section 66A was incorporated in the Finance Act, 1994 w.e.f. 18.4.2006, the service tax was leviable on reverse charge basis on recipient of service received from provider located outside India. From the facts on record, it appears, although the appellant was paying Service Tax on other services, received from provider within....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ened the provisions of the Act and as such the extended period of limitation is invocable. The show-cause notice proposed to demand Service Tax on reverse charge basis for the year 2006-07 to 2009-10 for a total amount of Rs. 16,86,152/- with proposal to appropriate the same against the deposit already made, with amount of interest under Section 75, already deposited. The show-cause notice further proposed to impose penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Act. 1.1 The appellant contested the show-cause notice by filing the reply of the same. It was contended by the appellant that there is no deliberate default and/or contumacious conduct in not paying the Service Tax on reverse charge basis. It was pointed out the levy on reverse cha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... law does not say so, authorities working under the law seen-m to think otherwise and thus they are wasting that valuable time in proceeding against persons who are paying Service Tax with interest promptly. The High Court further held that once the assessee deposited the amount of duty/tax with interest, the same to be treated as end of the matter and no further proceedings are required under Section 73(1). The Hon'ble High Court also made observation that in such case invoking the provision under Section 73(1) amounts to wastage of time and energy of the Revenue department. The show-cause notice was adjudicated confirming the proposed demand with interest and further penalty was imposed under the provisions of Sections 76, 77 & 78. 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... no penalty is required to be imposed under the provisions of Section 78. The learned Counsel further relies on the ruling of the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Kitec Industries India Ltd Vs. CCE, Vapi - 2015 (38) STR 166 (Tri-Ahmd), wherein in similar facts and circumstances, the assessee was under bona fide belief that no liability of Service Tax is excisable and the benefit under Section 80 was allowed and penalty was set aside by this Tribunal. 2.1 The learned Counsel also relies on the Division Bench ruling of this Tribunal in the case of Tech Mahindra Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III 2015-TIOL-295-CESTAT-MUM, wherein the assessee under an agreement with a overseas company for development of their busin....