2017 (11) TMI 774

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....vestigated, wherein it was found that in course of raising fund ECB and FCCB appellant are receiving services of various service provider based outside country like Merchant Bankers, Lead Manager, Advisors, Financial Advisors, Principle Agent, Legal Advisors, Management Consultant, Underwriters etc. In the inquiry, it was observed that M/s. Videocon Industries Limited and M/s. Videocon International Ltd (now merged with M/s. Videocon Industries Limited) entered into following agreement with different organizations/firms. (1) Facility Agreement dated 27-6-2006 with ICICI Bank Ltd, Singapore Branch, in connection with US$ 36 Milliion Credit Facility, (2) Facility Agreement dated 21-9-2006 with ICICI Bank Limited, Singapore B....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hartered Accountant appearing on behalf of the appellant at the outset submits that appellant have raised various defence before the Adjudicating authority which were not considered properly, therefore order suffers from principle of natural justice. He submits that demand is not sustainable on the following counts. (a) Service was provided and received outside India therefore Aurangabad Commissionerate has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the show cause notice. (b) The show cause notice does not indicate how the activity undertaken by the foreign companies which sought to be taxed falls under the definition of banking and finance service, management consultancy service and underwriter service as defined under Finance Act, 19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0)ELT 22(S.C.)] (d) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Special Steel Ltd[2015(329)ELT 449(Tri. Mumbai)] (e) Rallies (India) ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur[2016-TIOL-1699-CESTAT-MUM] (f) M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Central excise, Mumbai-V[Final Order NO. A/86741-86742/17/EB dated 21-3-2017. 4. On the other hand, Ms. P.V. Shekhar, Ld. Joint Commissioner(A.R.) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. Ld. A.R. submits that foreign service provider provided the services of merchant banking and underwriter service which clearly fall in the services of banking and other financial service, therefore service per se is undoubtedly lia....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n registration nor filing any ST 3 returns therefore it is clear case of suppression of facts hence demand for extended period was rightly invoked. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the record. 6. We find that before addressing the issue on merit, appeal can be disposed of on the issue of Revenue neutrality. From the impugned order, we observed that Ld. Commissioner did not deal with the issue of Revenue neutrality in detail and the same was rejected on the ground that there is suppression of facts, hence the case does not fall under the Revenue neutrality. We find that Revenue neutrality issue is independent from the issue of invocation of extended period which has to be examined independe....