TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 611
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rein the Ld. Commissioner has confirmed the demand of service tax amounting to Rs.91,97,197/-, including cess, along with interest and penalty. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a manufacturer of coke in their factory located at Haldia in the State of West Bengal. For the purpose of setting up the Heat Recovery Coke Oven Project in the said factory, the appellant entered into five Agreements, all dated October 27, 2005, with Beijing Sino-Steel Industries and Trade Group Corp (hereinafter referred to as "SSIT"), Beijing, China. The said plant simultaneously provides for production of power from the heat generated in the coke oven during conversion of coal to coke. 2.1. One of the five Agreements entered between the appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ces also. Thus, the appellant paid a total sum of Rs.91,90,101/- (including cess), along with interest thereon amounting to Rs.9,77,463/-, towards the services" received by them from SSIT. 2.3. Thereafter, on April 24, 2009, the Commissioner issued a show cause notice to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs.91,97,197/- (including cess). The Notice demanded service tax in respect of the taxable services, namely, 'intellectual property services' under Section 65(105)(zzr) and "consulting engineering service" under Section 65(105)(g) respectively of the Finance Act, received by them in the form of supply of designs and drawings from SSIT, China during the period 10th November, 2005 to 31st March 2008. The said Notice was adjudicated by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....KATA (iii) Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. McLeod Russel (India) Ltd. 2023 (3) TMI 739-CESTAT KOLKATA (iv) Crest Speciality Resins Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE&C 2023(II) TMI 167- CESTAT AHMEDABAD (v) SICPA India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, 2017(9) TMI 1325-CESTAT KOLKATA 3.2 Accordingly, the appellant prayed for setting aside the impugned order and allow their appeal. 4. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 5. Heard both sides and perused the appeal documents. 6. We observe that for the purpose of setting up the Heat Recovery Coke Oven Project in their factory, the appellant entered into five Agreements with Beijing Sino-Steel Indu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he category of "intellectual property services" in the impugned order is not sustainable. 6.2. Regarding the amount of service tax paid by the appellant for the IPR services received by them, we observe that the appellant has paid a total sum of Rs.91,90,101/- (including cess). The appellant claimed that the entire amount was paid as service tax under the category of "Intellectual property services", under protest. However, from the records submitted by the appellant we observe that the appellant had paid service tax of Rs.48,78,395/- only along with interest 'under protest' and informed the Department about the payment 'under protest' vide letter dated 28.02.2008. For the sake of ready reference, scanned copy of the letter....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wards receiving of various other services such as supervision charges and Training of personal etc. for which the appellant paid service tax, under reverse charge without any protest. We find that the appellant has rightly paid service tax on the taxable services such as supervision charges and Training of personal, without any protest. Thus, we uphold the payment of service tax by the appellant on other services received by them, under reverse charge. 7. Regarding the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, we observe that there is no suppression of facts with intention to evade the payment of tax established in this case. The appellant has paid service tax under the category of "consulting engineering ....