2019 (4) TMI 244

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ying appropriate Service Tax on 'Management Consultant Services' received by them form the overseas providers and on 'Business Auxiliary Services' provided by them in India. The SCN was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore vide Order No. 58/2008 dated 30.11.2008. The appellants are in appeal against the order. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the officer issuing SCN should adjudicate the case as per Section 73(1) and also Section 73(2) the words used are "The Central Excise Officer"; though Central Boards of Excise and Customs has delegated the power of Commissioner to ADG of DGCEI in terms of Notification 38/2001 dated 26.06.2001. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Valvoline Cummins Lt....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... from the Debit Note at Page no. 110 to 117 of Appeal Memorandum. Therefore, even if the amounts received paid after the date, the services that were received only after 18.04.2006 are liable for payment of Service Tax under 'Reverse Charge Mechanism'. He relied upon the following decisions: * Indian National Shipowners Association v. UOI, 2009 (13) STR 235 (Bom) approved by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2010(17) STR J57. * CCEx Cu and ST v. ABB Ltd., 2015 (39) STR 604 (Kar.). * CST v. SKF India Ltd., 2010 (18) STR 388 (Kar.) * Schott Glass India (P) Ltd. v. CCEx, 2007(8) STR 407 (Tri. Ahmd) 2.2. On the allegations levelled on the non-payment of Service Tax under 'Business Auxiliary Services' provided to a service recipient located ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.....04.2006 to 31.03.2007 and stated that the same has been paid along with interest. 2.5. He further submitted that commission received by the appellants is to be treated as inclusive of Service Tax in view of the following decisions: * CCE v. Maruthi Udyog Ltd., 2002 (141) ELT 3 (SC). * Srichakra Tyres Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1999 (108) ELT 361 (LB). * CCE v. T.V.S. Srichakra Ltd., 2002 (142) ELT A279 (SC). 2.6. Lastly, he submitted that as the appellants were under bona fide belief on the non-applicability of Service Tax for the services rendered by them or received by them extended period cannot be invoked and penalty under Section 76 & 78 cannot be levied. 3. Learned Authorized Representative has submitted that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... bureaucracy, officers keep on changing due to transfers, etc. If one considers the proposition that the same officer who has issued the SCN should adjudicate the case leads to an impracticable situation. Therefore, we are of the opinion that as rightly held by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court (supra), there is no infirmity in the issue. Moreover, we find that most of the cases submitted by the appellants are under the realm of Income Tax and therefore, a similarity cannot be brought in. Sayed Ali case is related to Customs and is on a different issue and is about period when the officers of DRI were not vested with the powers of Officers of Customs. 5.1. Coming to the liability of the appellants to pay Service Tax on 'reverse charge mecha....