2017 (11) TMI 775

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....limited, Mauritious for initial purchase of the aforesaid GDS. The appellants vide letter dated 31-3-2006 also appointed the aforesaid foreign collaborators as joint book-runners, joint global co-originator and joint lead managers. In terms of the agreement aforesaid service providers have undertaken various activities listed in the agreement. The said foreign collaborator raised invoices for undertaking services and also joint book runners and joint global manager etc. the said fee was consolidated amount for all the service rendered including underwriting service. The show cause notice was issued wherein department was of the view that appellant had paid certain fees/charges to foreign service providers for arrangement of GDS and that ser....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... (c) Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai Vs. Special Steel Ltd [2015(329) ELT 449] upheld by the Apex Court reported as 2016(334) ELT A123(SC)] He further submits that appellant are paying huge amount form the PLA during the relevant period and hence to the extent tax is paid on the aforesaid services the appellant could have paid lesser amount in the PLA account, hence to the extent there is no loss to the government the interest cannot be demanded. As regard the invocation of extended period for demand of service tax, he submits that since entire situation is revenue neutral there cannot be any allegation of suppression of facts with intention to evade payment of service tax. He submits that Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994 came....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rmed and received outside India therefore appellant are not liable to pay service tax on the aforesaid service. He submits that activity undertaken by the foreign collaborator is not covered under banking and other financial service therefore demand of service tax under the head of banking and other financial service will not sustain. In any case the appellant are not liable to pay service tax on the underwriters service as the same falls under Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Taxation of services(provided from outside India and received in India) Rules, 2006. In the present case admittedly the foreign collaborator have provided services outside India in terms of Rule 3(1)(ii) of the Taxation of services(provided from outside India and received in Indi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is shows that service was rendered after 18-4-2006, accordingly, claim of the appellant fails. She submits that whether service was rendered is underwriter and not BOFS, appellant placed reliance on the order of the Jublilant life sciences Ltd Vs. CCE [2013(29)STR 529]. In this regard she submits that fact of the present case is different from the case of Jublilant Life sciences Ltd and the said case has been distinguished by Hon'ble Tribunal in case of Axis Bank Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I[2015(40) S.T.R. 993]. Therefore the claim of the appellant that the service is not of BOFS is without any basis. She submits that revenue neutrality does not exist as appellant during the hearing before the adjudicating authority have state....