TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 456
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... post-negative list period i.e. 1.7.2012 to 31.03.2015 in respect of "Manpower Supply Service" provided by Overseas Group Company to its group company in India or not? 2. Briefly stated, the respondent is a part of the Oriental Consultants Company Ltd., Japan, (OC, Japan) which is engaged in providing engineering and consultancy services (OC), Japan, entered into an agreement with various Indian parties for provision of services/project in India through temporary project offices opened as per the guidelines issued by RBI. The respondent is one such Project Office of OC, Japan and is registered as a foreign company in India under the provisions of Section 592 of the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent being a Project Office incurs all exp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India) Rules, 2006 ('Import Rules') on services provided by OC, Japan to the respondent in India which is classifiable as "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service "as specified under Section 65(105)(k) read with Section 65(68) of the Act. For the period post 01.07.2012, the services of manpower supply are chargeable to tax in terms of Rule 3 of the "Place of Provision of Services Rules, 2012 [POP Rules] 4. Subsequently, show cause notice/statement of demand dated 31.03.2016 was issued for the period 2014-15 raising demand of service tax of Rs.68,06,684/- on the same allegations as above. On adjudication, the impugned order was passed relying on the decisions of the Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a separate legal entity from OC, Japan and, therefore, no tax can be levied on services received by the respondent from OC, Japan as it amounts to 'service to self'. She emphasized that the respondent and OC, Japan are one and the same company as the respondent is merely a Project Office, which is registered as a foreign company in India. The agreement is entered between OC, Japan directly with Indian Customers under its own seal and also the invoices which are raised by the respondent on the Indian customers are for payment directly to the bank account of OC, Japan. Hence, OC, Japan cannot be treated as a separate person. The learned counsel has also relied on a series of decisions as under:- (1) SNC Lavalin Inc. Vs. CST, Delhi [2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealthcare Private Limited Vs. CCE, [Jaipur-1 2018 (2) TMI 1408-CESTAT New Delhi] (18) Kusum Healthcare Private Limited Vs. CCE, Alwar [2021 (10) TMI 229- CESTAT New Delhi] (19) Kusum Healthcare Private Limited Vs. CCE, Alwar [2023 (3) TMI 173-CESTAT New, Delhi Also affirmed by C-9.7.24] (20) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Vs. CCE, Pune-1, [2016-VIL-625-CESTAT-MUM-ST] (21) Aricent Technologies (Holding) Limited Vs. CCE, Panchkula, [2017 (5) TMI 521 (CESTAT-Chandigarh)] 7. We find that the issue in the present case of service tax liability on the respondent is no longer res integra and has been decided earlier by the Tribunal in similar circumstances. 8. We may first refer to the decision of the Tribunal in the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to avoid service tax payment in India by showing the services to have been availed abroad." 9. In the case of SNC Lavalin Inc., where the appellant was a Project Office of M/s. SNC Lavalin Inc, Canada and the dispute related to service tax liability with reference to certain debit entries made in their books of accounts, which related to deployment of certain offices by GNC, Canada. The debit entries related to such expenses of salary, travelling etc of the officers deployed in India was sought to be charged towards service tax under the category of "Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency Service". Referring to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Lea International Ltd. and Others and line of decisions on the issue, it was held th....