TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lleging that the appellants were not paying 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..../- was paid on 30.05.2006, the services were received before 31.03.2006 as can be seen 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 all....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s the service recipient is abroad, the same needs to be treated as export of services. The Learned Counsel, however, accepted the duty liability for the period 19.04.2006 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Sections referred above. It is not the case of the appellants that the ADG, DGCEI issued the SCN and the Commissioner of Central Excise who adjudicated the case is not Central Excise Officers. In 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 differ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e find that for this reason issue needs to go back to the adjudicating authority to compute the cum-duty Service Tax for the period 09.07.2004 to 31.03.2007. We find that the appellants have not demonstrated their bonafides vis-à-vis invocation of extended period. It is not the case of the appellants that they have kept the Department informed of all their activities and made a mention of the same in the CT-3 Returns. In the absence of the same, the Department would have no way to find out the taxable services rendered by the appellants and the remuneration received. Therefore, we find that extended period is squarely invokable in the case. However, we find that penalty cannot be imposed under both Sections 76 & 78 of the Finance Act....