Case Law Details
Aban Offshore Ltd Vs Commissioner of GST & Central Excise (CESTAT Chennai)
CESTAT Chennai held that DGCEI officers are Central Excise Officers as they have been vested with the powers are fully competent to issue Show Cause Notice demanding service tax on reverse charge.
Facts- The appellant is engaged in providing offshore drilling services to oil They are also registered with the Service Tax Department for providing other taxable services. While providing the offshore drilling service, the appellant engaged the services of various service providers located outside India, to provide engineering consultancy, management consultancy, testing & inspection and banking service.
Based on intelligence, it was alleged that the appellant has neither obtained service tax registration for receiving the subject services nor paid service tax on reverse charge basis in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(iv) of Service Tax Rules, 1994. Accordingly, demand for service tax with equal penalty u/s. 78 of FA 1994 for the extended period along with penalty u/s. 76 of FA 1994 for the normal period was confirmed. Being aggrieved, the present appeal is filed.
Conclusion- Held that the services provided from outside India by Barclays UK is received by the Appellant in India with a reverse flow of consideration for the said activity and the service is exigible to tax under the Reverse Charge Mechanism as per section 66A(1) of FA 1994.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
