It is not known as to why the Assistant Commissioner chose not to give a personal hearing which is a clear violation of Principles of Natural Justice. The original authority has shown total disregard for the principles of natural justice in not granting personal hearing before passing the adjudication order. There is no indication that the respondent was delaying the adjudication proceedings as the reply has been promptly submitted by the respondents as has been duly noted by the original authority. He has held that the respondents have not produced any evidence to prove that the charge raised by them on the main service provider has been included on the tenable value of the main service provider
The respondents is a manufacturer of satellite components and aircraft components classifiable under Chapter sub-heading 88033000 and they are paying excise duty on these goods. They are also providing service of renting of immovable property coming under Section 65(105) (zzzz) of Finance Act, 1994. The respondents have availed credit of excise duty paid on capital goods and inputs and service tax paid on input service.
Payment made by the first respondent/assessee was not voluntary and was forced to make the said payment. In such circumstances, the said payment can only be construed as one made under protest. When once the said conclusion based on the above facts are inevitable, then the second proviso to sub section 1 of Section 11B of the Central Excise Act, automatically comes into play.
On hearing both sides, we find that the issue in dispute is as to whether service tax liability arises on recipient of commission who resides outside India and has no office in India, for the period prior to 18.4.2006. The Apex Court has held that such liability arises only with effect from 18.4.2006 with the introduction of Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1944. The ratio of the Apex Court’s decision in Union of India Vs. India
Assessee has not made out a case for total waiver of pre-deposit and keeping in view the total facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the assessee to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (one lakh) within a period of four weeks from today and on such deposit, pre-deposit of the balance amount of Service Tax and penalty shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed pending the appeal. Failure to comply with this direction shall result in vacation of stay and dismissal of appeal without prior notice.
The activity of marketing agents was brought under the tax net with effect from 1-7-03 when BAS was introduced; same services could not be classifiable under C&F Agent Service for any previous period as the scope of C&F Agent service was not modified when BAS was introduced in the Finance Act, 1994.
CCE (ST) Vs. M/s. EID Parry – Demands on Indian companies for tax on services of BAS received from persons abroad – held that “it is only after enactment of Section 66A that taxable services received from abroad by a person belonging to India are taxed in the hands of the Indian residents – Since Section 66A was introduced on 18.4.2006 much after the material period, the impugned order had to be sustained – revenue’s appeal rejected
A transaction in intellectual property (IP) along with the right to manufacture the licensed product is totally different from the technical assistance rendered by an engineer or a firm of engineers; when IP services are brought under the tax net without altering the scope of “Consulting Engineer Service” the new impost covers an activity hitherto not exigible to service tax under the head Consulting Engineer.
We have gone through the contracts entered into between the assessee and its clients. As per the contract with TCS, Focus would provide technical assistance of choice personnel to work on the computer software development, implementation and maintenance of specific project to be allocated by TCS.
