2019 (6) TMI 957

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....service tax under the category of Management Consultancy services under the Reverse Charge Mechanism (RCM). The rate of service tax was reduced from 12% to 10% on 24^th February, 2008. For the services received by them from outside India during the year 2008, the foreign remittance was made on 26th March, 2008 when the rate of service tax was 10%. The appellant accordingly made the payment of service tax @ 10% and disclosed in the ST-3 returns. The Department raised the dispute stating that the appellant should have paid service tax on aforesaid foreign remittance at the rate of 12% as was applicable during the period when service was rendered. Accordingly, the appellant paid differential service tax of Rs. 16,15,249/-with applicable intere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....xports Ltd. vs. CCE, Ahmedabad [2014 (34) S.T.R. 445 (Tri. - Ahmd.)] • Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai [2016 (45) S.T.R. 433 (Tri.- Mumbai)] • CCE & ST LTU, Bangalore vs. Adecco Flexione Workforce Solutions Ltd 2012 (26) STR 3 (Kar) • Arcgate v. CCE, Jaipur 2017 (5) G.S.T.L 281 (Tri-Del.) • P.T. Education & Training Services Ltd. v. CCE, Jaipur 2009 (14) STR 34 (Tri-Del.) • CCE, Delhi v. Consulting Engg. Service (I) Pvt. Ltd. 2013 (30) STR 561 (Tri-Del.) He also submitted that service tax payable by appellant is available as CENVAT credit to the appellant and therefore the case is completely Revenue Neutral. He relied on the ratio of the decision in the case of H....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pay service tax after remittance, i.e. cash basis, as was the law applicable during the impugned period, the appellant paid service tax at the prevailing rate of 10%. On being pointed out, the appellant immediately paid the differential service tax with interest and intimated to the Department which fact is on record and not in dispute. It is my considered view that since the tax with applicable interest stood discharged well before the issuance of SCN, the very SCN could not be issued in terms of Section 73(3) of the Act and the question of further imposition of equivalent penalty under Section 78 should not have arisen. Moreover, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in appellant's own case has already granted relief from imposition of penalty v....