TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 745
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 66A(1) of the Finance Act 1994, the appellant being the recipient of service in India is liable to pay tax on the amount paid or remitted to the foreign based service provider under the Banking and Financial services on Reverse Charge Mechanism [RCM] basis. 2.1 It is observed that service tax amounting to Rs. 1,93,968/- has been evaded on these services received by the appellant during the period from December 2012 to September 2013. The appellant was found not discharging the said liability even for the prior period also starting from the year 2006-2007 to 2011-2012. Accordingly, a show cause notice bearing No. 34/2013/117 dated 2.01.2014 was served upon the appellant proposing the recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,93,968/- along with the proportionate interest and the appropriate penalty under Section 76 and 77. The said proposal was initially confirmed vide Order-in-Original No. 08/2014-15 dated 28.01.2015. Appeal against the said order has been rejected/dismissed vide the impugned order in appeal as mentioned above. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard Ms. Jwaria Kainaat, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Aejaz Ahma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t the department has been issuing similar show cause notices for the previous period also with effect from year 2006-07 and the department's own order i.e. Order-in-Original bearing No. 17/2013-14 dated 29.03.2014 has dropped the demand in terms of Notification No. 5/2011 dated 01.06.2011. Learned counsel has impressed upon that the said decision has wrongly been ignored by the present adjudicating authorities. The Supreme Court decision in the case of Vishnu Traders Vs. State of Haryana and Others [1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 461] is relied upon. With these submissions, the order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be allowed. 5. While rebutting these submissions, learned Departmental Representative has, at the outset, has reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority is below. It is submitted that the undisputed fact is that the appellant has received services from the foreign based service providers. Since appellant is in taxable territory, it was liable to pay service tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism. Since the value/cost of Business Exhibition Service is liable to tax and that the appellant has not discharged the said service tax liability,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t has been the settled law that once an order has been passed allowing full relief to the assessee then it would not be proper for the department to take a different view on same issue provided there are no factual difference in two situations. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Vishnu Traders (supra) has held as under: "In the matters of interlocutory orders, principle of binding precedents cannot be said to apply. However, the need for consistency of approach and uniformity in the exercise of judicial discretion respecting similar causes and the desirability to eliminate occasions for grievances of discriminatory treatment requires that all similar matters should receive similar treatment except when factual differences require a different treatment so that there is assurance of consistency, uniformity, predictability and certainty of judicial approach." 7. This decision has been followed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sayajit Hotels Ltd. Indore Vs. Union of India, New Delhi [2010-TIOL-735-HC] and it has been held that in the absence of change in the circumstances, the Tribunal should have maintained the consistency and uniformity while exercising the judicial discretion an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se (hhh) of Section 94 of Finance Act 1994 has introduced Place of Provision of Service Rules, 2012. We observe that Rule 6 thereof is relevant vis-à-vis the present controversy which reads as follows: "The place of provision of services provided by way of admission to, or organization of a cultural, artistic, sporting, scientific, educational, or entertainment event, or a celebration, conference fair, exhibition, or similar events, and of services ancillary to such admission, shall be the place where the event is actually held." 10. The bare perusal makes it clear that the Place of Provisions for holding any exhibition/events shall be the place where the event is held. The department's own Educational Guide dated 20.06.2012 has also clarified that the event held outside taxable territory is not covered under Finance Act, 1994. It is an undisputed fact of the present appeal that the Business Exhibition for which the appellant received services from the foreign agencies, were held outside the taxable territory. Resultantly, the Place of Provision of Services received by the appellant from the foreign service provider shall be outside the territory of India. Accordingly, we....