TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 1283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iranda Tools (MT) and M/s Ultra Nova, SAS (Ultra Nova) together had formed a joint venture company namely M/s Miranda Ultra Tools Pvt. Ltd. (MUTPL) for the purpose of Bi-metal Band Shaw blades. A Technology license agreement dated 27.11.2012 was entered between MUTPL and M/s Ultra Nova SAS for import of technical know-how from Ultra Nova, France to run the Bi-metal Band Saw machines and for the continuous uninterrupted production of Bi-Metal Band Saws. The respondent had paid an amount of Euros 13,33,333 as technical knowhow fee to Ultra Nova, France for import of technical knowhow. The respondent had imported the technical knowhow and paid the amount in foreign currency to Ultra Nova, France for the same. The revenue issued a show cause no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....venue neutral, relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Coco Cola 2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC). 2.3 Learned authorised representative pointed out that the said decision of Commissioner has been reviewed by the Committee of Commissioners on the ground that the agreement entered into by the respondent was dated 27.11.2012. It was argued in the review order that after introduction of negative list regime i.e. w.e.f. 01.07.2012, the classification of service becomes irrelevant. It has been argued that the agreement entered into by the respondent and the foreign party qualifies as service within the meaning of Section 65B(44) of Finance Act, 1994. He further argued that he terms "Taxable Service" has been defined under Sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gued that in so far as these grounds are being invoked, the proceedings are beyond the show cause notice. Learned counsel relied on the following decisions in support of this arguments: Bajaj Auto Ltd. 2003 (151) ELT 23 (BOM) Brij Mohan SUrinder Kumar 2012 (25) STR 58 (T) Viacom Electronics (P) Ltd. 2002 (145) ELT 563 (T-Mum) 5. He further argued that in the instant case there is clear revenue neutrality in so far as the respondent can avail credit of the entire duty paid. He pointed out that the respondent have already availed the credit of service tax paid by them. He further relied on the following decisions: Coca Cola India Private Ltd. 2007 (213) ELT 490 (SC) Indeos ABS Ltd. 2010 (254) ELT 628 (Guj-HC) Jain Irrigation syst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hiripal Polyfilms Ltd. 2021 (3) TMI 1345 -CES-AHM Ashirwad Foundaries Pvt. Ltd. 2020 (3) TMI-847-CES-KOL Reliance Industries Ltd. 2016 (6) TMI 1108 (CES-MUM) In the case of Nayara Energy Limited following has been observed : "4. We have considered the submission made by both the side and perused the record. The issue involved in this case is only related to the penalties imposed by the Ld. Adjudicating authority. It is admitted fact on records that the appellant herein had discharged the Service Tax liability along with interest before receipt of the show cause notice. It is also undisputed that the Service Tax liability under RCM has arisen on the ground of appellant being the recipient of services of Banking and Financial Services ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et any extra revenue in such a Revenue Neutral Situation. It is settled law on Revenue Neutrality that there cannot be willful suppression of facts or intent to evade payment of Service Tax when whatever Service Tax if paid by Appellant was available to themselves as Cenvat Credit. Plethora of Decisions relied upon by Appellant in their submissions in this case, on Revenue Neutrality and on Time Limitation support their case. The Order-in- Original has rejected submission on Revenue Neutrality with illogical, incorrect and unjustified observation that if argument of Revenue Neutrality as a permissible defense is accepted, entire scheme of payment of taxes on reverse charge basis will become irrelevant. However, the facts of payment of subst....