Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Dishman Pharmaceutical & Chemicals Ltd. Vs C.S.T.-Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Appeal Number : Service Tax Appeal No. 442 of 2011
Date of Judgement/Order : 14/03/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Dishman Pharmaceutical & Chemicals Ltd. Vs C.S.T.-Service Tax (CESTAT Ahmedabad)

As regard the service tax demand on stock exchange fees, we find that no documentary evidence was produced to show that this is a statutory levy and the appellant have paid as reimbursement. It appears that the Stock Exchange has charged fees to the appellant against the stock exchange service, therefore, in our considered view in the facts of this activity, the stock exchange- Singapore has provided the service to the appellant against stock exchange service therefore, this clearly covers under taxable service and appellant is liable to pay tax under Reverse Charge Mechanism in terms of Section 66A read with Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Accordingly, demand of service tax on stock exchange service is upheld.

FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT AHMEDABAD ORDER

This appeal is against the Order-In-Original No. STC/4-56/O&A/Dn.II/2009/01 dated 31.03.2011 of the Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad. The appellant are engaged in the manufacturing of Bulk Drugs falling under the Chapter 29 of the Central Excise tariff Act, 1985 and registered with the department for payment of service tax under the category of GTA, BAS, Online Data Information Service etc. During the course of audit, it was observed by the audit officers that appellant is receiving the taxable services from outside India and incurred the expenditure in foreign currency. Revenue initiated proceedings against them to demand and recover service tax not paid under reverse charge mechanism during the period 2006-07 to 2008-09. Proceedings initiated against the appellant culminated in the impugned order resulting in confirmation of Service tax liability of Rs. 45,42,521/-. A penalty under Section 76,77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1944 was also imposed. Aggrieved, the appellant is before this forum.

2. Shri R. Subramanya, Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submit the expenses wise contentions as under:

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031