TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 62
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....18, passed by the Principal Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate. 2. The facts of the case area that during the course of audit by the officers of GST and Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate, it was noticed from the Income Tax Returns in Form 3CEB filed by the CTS India for the Financial Years 2012 - 13 and 2013 - 14, that they had declared to have rendered 'On-site Development of Software relates services' to their Branch office located in the USA (CTS USA) and have received Rs.75,82,95,595/- during the financial year 2012 - 13 and Rs.56,80,90,136/- during the financial year 2013 - 14 from their US Branch office for the services rendered to them (CTS USA). The onsite development of software relat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red by the appellant (CTS India). He reiterated that the said amount earned by their US branch office for their services gets consolidated in the appellant's books of accounts and in all its statutory reporting and was hence reflected in their Income Tax Returns Form 3CEB also. Therefore, the amount mentioned in the form is only for reporting purposes, being a mandatory requirement. He has taken us through the following documents during his submissions: - a. Sample copies of invoices issued by their overseas branch office to their customers i.e. its associated enterprise situated outside India b. bank statement of the overseas branch office evidencing receipt of the consideration c. Extracts from the US Income Tax....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of CGST, Panchkula - 2022(8) TMI 832 - CESTAT Chandigarh He prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may set aside the impugned order and render justice. 7. We have heard learned AR Shri M. Ambe for the Revenue. He stated that it was evidenced from the books of accounts and the returns filed by the appellant under Income Tax Act that payments were received for exempted services provided by appellant to their US branch. Since they were using common input services on which CENVAT credit was availed, and by not maintaining a separate inventory of accounts, made the appellant liable to reverse the amount as prescribed under Rule 6 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004. Further, the appellant has not provided evidences, documents etc. regar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....articulars in respect of providing of services' is reported. The appellant has responded with a 'Yes' to having entered into international transactions in respect of services. The tabular column below the para shows that one of the international transaction was with CTS USA. The description of service provided is shown as 'On-site development of software related services.' An amount of Rs 758295595/- is shown as received both as per 'book of accounts' and as 'as computed by the assessee having regard to arm's length price'. The counsel for the appellant had explained that the said entry was only reflecting the amount received by its branch at W. Burr Boulevard in the USA. The amount received by the US Branch gets consolidated in the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....seas branch as alleged in the SCN. It has been satisfactorily demonstrated by the appellant that it was CTS USA who has rendered service to their associated enterprise in USA and received the payment for it in USA for the amount declared in the Income Tax Form 3CEB. There is no allegation in the Show Cause Notice that CTS USA was only a front company for services rendered by CTS India in the USA. This being so no taxable service has been rendered by CTS India in USA with respect to the impugned figures disclosed in their Income Tax Form 3CEB for the Financial Year 2012 - 13 and 2013 - 14. This entry was the trigger for the allegations in the show cause notice that culminated in the impugned order. Once no service was rendered by the appella....