Service Tax Appeal No.10619 of 2013-DB, (Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.PJ/451/VDR-II/2012-13 dated 18.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs, & Service Tax, Vadodara). Case: Plastichemix Industries Vs C.C.E.& Cus., Vadodara II. CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal)
| Case Number | Service Tax Appeal No.10619 of 2013-DB, (Arising out of the Order-in-Appeal No.PJ/451/VDR-II/2012-13 dated 18.2.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Customs, & Service Tax, Vadodara) |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Shri Willingdon Christian, Advocate and For Appellant: Shri N. Satwani, A.R. |
| Judges | Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (Judicial) and Mr. Ashok K. Arya, Member (Technical) |
| Issue | Finance Act, 1994 - Sections 65, 66A |
| Judgement Date | May 19, 2017 |
| Court | CEGAT (Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal) & CESTAT (Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal) |
Order:
Ashok K. Arya, (West Zonal Bench)
-
Plastichemix Industries is in appeal against the Order-in-Appeal No.451/2012-13 dated 18.2.2012 whereunder, inter alia the original order dated 31.10.2011 confirming the demand of service tax of Rs.3,07,749/- along with interest and equivalent penalty has been sustained.
-
The brief facts of the case are that
(i) The appellans had received taxable service in the form of Business Exhibition Service from the foreign service provider during 2006- 2011 falling under Section 65 (105)(zzo) of the Finance Act, 1994.
(ii) The appellants made a payment of Rs.27,30,710/- in foreign currency and did not pay service tax of Rs.3,07,749/- due thereon;
(iii) The show cause notice dated 6.7.2011 was issued demanding service tax of Rs.3,07,749/- along with interest and penalty;
(iv) The show cause notice was confirmed by the original adjudicating authority and the said order was sustained by the impugned Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner(Appeals).
(v) Hence, the present appeal before the Tribunal.
-
With the background of the above facts, both sides represented by Shri Willingdon Christian, ld. Advocate for the appellants and Shri N. Satwani for the Revenue have been heard.
4.1 The appellant vehemently submits that the whole service was rendered /performed outside India and therefore, it was not taxable unless it was wholly or partly performed in India. Section 66A of the Finance Act 1994, which is a charging section for service tax on services received from outside India,inter alia provides that service tax is liable to be paid for any service specified in clause (105) of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 if service has been
(a) provided by a person having established business or fixed establishment or permanent address or usual place of residence, in a country other than India;
(b) received by a person who has his place of business, fixed establishment, permanent address or usual place of residence in India.
Section 66A is a deeming provision which says that such service shall be taxable service and such taxable service shall be treated so as if the recipient has himself provided the service in India and accordingly, the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 for levy of service tax will be applicable to such facts
4.1 The Taxation of Services (Provided from Outside India and Received in India), Rules, 2006 further provides vide Rule 3(ii) that -- the taxable service provided from outside India and...
To continue reading
Request your trial