Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2018 (8) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....elf reliance in Hydrocarbon sector. 2. The appellant entered in to an agreement with M/s Shell Global (situated abroad) to provide services to four Public Sector Oil refineries (Namely HPCL-Vizakh, CPL- Manali, BPCL-Kochi and IOCL-Mathura refineries) for an Integrated Refinery Business Improvement Programme. 3. As per the agreement, the Appellant was to pay consideration for services net of taxes. This means Appellant has to pay the amount due to the service provider without any deduction and has to bear the burden of all taxes and duties payable under Indian Laws. 4. The Services provided by M/s Shell Global Solution is covered under the category of Scientific or Technical services under section 65(105) (za) of the 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

....d the Service Tax on the entire consideration paid to M/s Shell, on reverse charge basis under the category of Scientific or Technical Services. The amount which was withheld and paid as Income Tax was in addition to the invoice amounts and hence in terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, the demand of Service Tax on such withheld tax was not justified as has been held by the Mumbai, Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Company Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-III order dated 24/02/2016. The Ld. Advocate submitted that the cited decision is on identical facts and the benefit may be extended to the present appellant. 9. The Ld. DR justified impugned order. 10. After ....