TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (1) TMI 584
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Services and Business Support Services. Appellant is having a Branch Office in the United States. 2. Appellants availed Cenvat Credit of Service Tax paid on their input services like Banking & Other Financial Service, Chartered Accountant Service, Courier Service, and Insurance Service, Security Agency Service, Renting of Immovable Property Service, Manpower Service, Management/ Business Consultancy Service, etc., and has utilized the same for payment of Service Tax on their output services. 3. During the course of audit conducted by the officers of erstwhile Large Taxpayer Unit Commissionerate, Chennai, it was noticed from the Income Tax Returns in Form 3CEB filed by appellants under Sec 92E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Finan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, 2004. After due process of law, the said demand was confirmed vide Order in Original No. 51/2018-CH-N-GST dated 27.03.2018 along with appropriate interest under section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994. Equal penalty under Section 78(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, read with Rule 15(3) of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, was also imposed for the aforesaid contravention. 5. The appellant continued the same contravention for the subsequent periods and SOD for the period April 2015 to March 2017 was issurd for Rs. 4,34,52,037/- on the basis of Income tax return in Form 3 CEB for the financial years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. 6. After due process of law, the original authority confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties. Aggriev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se documents that the subject transactions are not services rendered by the Appellant, and hence ought not be held as "exempt services rendered by the Appellant. The very basis of SCN being erroneous, the SOD ought to be quashed and the Impugned Order be set aside. 7.5 The entire amount disclosed in Form 3CEB reflects provision of on-site support services rendered by US branch office of the Appellant to its Associated Enterprise(s) situated outside India. The aforementioned amount earned by the US branch office for their services gets consolidated in the Appellant's books of accounts and in all its statutory reporting. Therefore, the amount disclosed in the return is only for reporting purposes, being a mandatory requirement. 7.6 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ellant 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. 75,82,95,595/- 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 appellants books of account as it is a part ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....N. 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 appellant in USA, which is exigible to tax ....