TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 304
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als)/ME/185/2017 dated 05.03.2018 (for short, herein referred to as 'impugned order'). 2.1. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the M/s Gillette India Limited, Mumbai (herein after referred to as 'respondentassessee', for short) are engaged in manufacture of male grooming products and in providing the services of Business Auxiliary Service, Consulting Engineers' service and Intellectual Property service, as recipient of service from overseas service provider for which they are registered with the jurisdictional Service Tax Commissionerate under Registration No. AAACI3924JST003. 2.2. The respondent-assessee is one of the group companies of M/s. Procter and Gamble group along with M/s. Procter and Gamble Hygiene and Health Limite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... dated 30.01.2017. Feeling aggrieved the respondent-assessee had appealed before the first appellate authority. The learned Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Thane Rural, Mumbai in terms of CBEC Order No.17/2017-S.T. dated 28.11.2017, this case having been assigned to him for passing an Order-in-Appeal had given a personal hearing on 08.02.2018 to the respondent-assessee and decided the case by passing the impugned order, setting aside the Order-in-Original dated 30.01.2017, and by allowing the appeal with consequential relief to the respondent-assessee. 2.3. Being aggrieved against the impugned order dated 05.03.2018, the Revenue have filed this appeal before the tribunal. 3. The Learned DR appearing for the Revenue reiterated the s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....should be applicable, including the exemption contained in the Notification dated 10.9.2004 to the recipient of service. To support the stand that the respondent should be eligible for exemption Notification No. 17/2004-S.T., dated 10-9-2004, the Ld. Advocate has relied on the decision of Principal Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Indore Vs. Cummins Technologies India Ltd., [2017 (7) G.S.T.L. 69 (Tri.-Del.)]. 5. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 6. Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994 is the charging Section, which provides that in respect of taxable services mentioned therein, service tax shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed. Even for the import of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... only dispute in the case is that the eligibility of the appellant for the exemption under Notification cited above as a recipient of service. A plain reading of Section 66A brings out the legal obligation of the recipient of service in certain situations. The said Section stipulates that taxable service shall be treated as if provided by the recipient of service in India and accordingly, all the provisions of Chapter V shall apply. We find that the tax liability is put on the appellant on such legal fiction. It is not legally tenable to hold that such legal fiction will have limited application only for payment of service tax and not with reference to any concession available to such service tax. No such implication can be read from the pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e to Rule 2(d)(iv), where by issue of notification dated 31.12.2004, any taxable service provided by a person who is a non-resident or is from outside India is notified for payment of service tax by a person who receives such taxable service in India. It was held by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay that the Union of India got the legal authority to levy service tax on the recipients of the taxable service, first time when the Finance Act, 1994 was amended by inserting section 66A through the Finance Act, 2006 w.e.f. 18.4.2006. In other words, it is only after enactment of Section 66A that taxable services received from abroad by a person belonging to India are taxed in the hands of Indian residents. Hence, we are unable to agree with the ld. AR....