TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 252
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for reconsideration of the aspect of limitation and imposition of penalty on the point of revenue neutrality and on the basis other facts also. 1.1 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant raised finance through 'External Commercial Borrowings (ECB) & 'Foreign Currency Convertible Bonds' (FCCB) for which they have received services of various service providers viz., Merchant Bankers, Lead Managers, Advisors, Financial Advisors, Principle Agents, Legal Advisors, Management Consultants, under writers, etc. who are based outside India and have charged fees for their services in Foreign Currency for raising funds through ECB & FCCB. Since these service provider were located outside India, as per Rule 2 (1)(d)(iv) of the Service tax ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal for rectification of mistakes in respect of Final Order dated 24.05.2021. The ROM application of the appellant was decided by the Tribunal vide Misc. Order dated 12.04.2022 wherein tribunal passed the order as under: "4.------ However, considering the other facts of the case, it would be proper that issue of limitation as well as imposition of penalty should be considered not only limited to revenue neutrality but on the basis of other facts also. Therefore the issue of limitation as well as imposition of penalty need to be reconsidered as open remand." In pursuance of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal the Ld. Commissioner passed the impugned order dated 29.07.2022 and confirmed the service tax demand alongwith interest and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10873 of 2013 decided on 14.07.202023 BASF India Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST -Surat -II, Service tax appeal No. 11873 of 2013-DB decided on 21.06.2023. Sarovar Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Comm. Of ST, Mumbai -2018(10)GSTL 72 (Tri.-Mumbai) Chiripal Polyfilms Ltd. Vs. CCE&ST, Vadodara-I- 2022(67)GSTL 454(Tri. Ahmd) Commissioner of Service tax Vs. Reliance Communications Ltd. 2019(22) GSTL 203 (Tri. Mumbai) EMI Transmission Ltd. Vs. CCE 2019(20)GSTL 259 (Tri. Mumbai) Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Raipur ,2021(375)ELT 379 (Tri. Del.) Reliance Securities Ltd. Vs. Comm. Of ST, Mumbai -II, 2019(20)GSTL 265(Tri.-Mumbai) Hyundai Motor India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commr. Of C.Ex & ST., LTU, Chennai -2019(29)GSTL 452 (Tri. Chennai) Nirlon Ltd. Vs. CCE, Mum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e tax. Further, the Ld. Commissioner failed to appreciate that upon receipt of letter dated 31.10.2007, the appellant disclosed all the requisite information to the Department, which, by itself, is sufficient to show that there was no intention on the part of the appellant to evade payment of tax. 2.4 She further submits that merely because the payment was made after issuance of letter seeking information by the department, the same, by itself, is not sufficient to prove that there was a deliberate or conscious wrongdoing on the part of appellant. It is a settled position of law that the ingredient such as fraud, wilful misstatement, suppression of facts, etc. cannot be alleged and consequently penalty cannot be imposed except for case whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellant. On the factual matrix as noted hereinabove, we find that the issue is to be decided in favour of the appellant, as regards penalty imposed, We find that the plea of Revenue neutrality is strong plea, as in this case also credit is available to the appellant on Service Tax paid under reverse charge mechanism can be utilized for discharge of excise duty and hence there can be no reason to avoid Service Tax liability. It is noted that various decisions are in favour of the assessee. The judgments of Tribunal in the case of.Dineshchan- dra R. Agarwal Infracon Pvt. Ltd. 2010 (18) S.T.R. 39 (Tri. - Ahmd.) (supra) and Sagar Enterprises 2010 (18) S.T.R. 212 (Tri. - Ahmd.) (supra) and also the judgments relied upon by the Ld. advocate are....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Karnataka in the case of C. Ahead Info Technologies India P. Ltd. In that case, the Revenue was challenging the order passed by the Tribunal which has set aside the penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, observing that the records indicate the absence of intent to evade duty. 6. In the case of Essar Steel Ltd. - 2009 (13) S.T.R. 579 (Tri.-Ahmd.) also, in the case of ECB Facility, this Tribunal took a view that when the situation is revenue neutral and the appellant manufacturer is entitled to Cenvat credit, it cannot be said that there was an intent to evade duty and extended period can be invoked. 7. In view of the precedent decisions discussed above which are applicable to the facts of this case, we find that penalty impos....