TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 258
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Rs. 36,53,911/-, Rs. 2,89,594/-, as provider of 'business auxiliary services', and Rs. 85,976/-, as provider of 'management consultancy services' by an overseas provider is sought to be fastened on the appellant, along with appropriate interest, and penalties imposed under section 76 and section 77 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant, outlining his arguments, submits that appellant is a 'buying agent' for various customers based abroad and, in that capacity, grants final approval for the articles that are shipped by various suppliers directly to the overseas customers. Pointing out that the total consideration received from the Indian suppliers is not attributable to the value of the goods, for which payments were be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat it was on a perusal of the balance sheets and final accounts, indicating remittance of payment to foreign entity, that the adjudicating authority decided to include these as taxable under the 'reverse charge mechanism' and that, in their reply to the notice, they had clearly pointed out that remittance amount has been wrongly cited as consideration for provision of service by the appellant. 3. On the issue of taxability on 'reverse charge basis', it would appear that the contentions of the appellant had not been taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority. It is very clear that during the period of dispute, no tax could have been levied on 'reverse charge basis' as section 66A of Finance Act, 1994 which came into effect from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... customers, they had merely fulfilled the commercial expectations of the buyers. It is the submission of Learned Counsel for the appellant that by, no stretch, could such commercial appreciation be treated at par with the service within which the service tax authorities sought to cover the under 'technical testing and certification'. Placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal in AT & Company v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi [2017 (49) STR 574 (Tri. Delhi)] and on the decision of the Tribunal in Antony Garages Private Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raigad [2015 (38) STR 49 (Tri.- Mumbai)] that the tax was intended to cover providers of such services as involved expert testing and certification linked to some statutory ....