M\/s. Mahindra Holiday & Resorts India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai
Service Tax
2018 (11) TMI 1216 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (29) G. S. T. L. 343 (Tri. – Chennai)
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 29-8-2018
Appeal No. ST\/522\/2011 – Final Order No. 42343\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri S. Thirumalai, Advocate for Appellant
\nShri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, Addl. Commr. AR) for Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nThe facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in providing Club or Association service and are registered with the department under the said category. Pursuant to audit, it appeared to the department that the appellant had received certain services such as Management Consultancy Service etc. from various persons located outside India. It further appeared that expenses shown as “Branch Office Expense” in foreign currency were in relation to providing holi<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ,43,60,316\/- with interest and also imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. Hence this appeal. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n h Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2016-VIL-625-CESTAT-MUM-ST and 3i Info Tech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service, Mumbai – II – 2017-VIL-04-CESTAT-MUM-ST. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n rge of service tax under reverse charge. Rule 3(iii) specifies the residuary list of taxable services and those services as are received by a recipient located in India for use in relation to business and commerce. From the facts on record, we find that the impugned services provided outside India will fall within the ambit of Rule 3(ii). Para 4.2.8 of the Board Circular dated 19.4.2006 has clarified that to attract service tax levy, such services will be required to be physically performed partly or wholly in India. Even as per the show cause notice, it is alleged that the services provided in Thailand and other places are leviable to service tax since it is intended for members in India. Thus, department does not have a case that the impugned services are physically performed in India. In the instant case, from the table found in para 15 of the impugned order and the analysis thereof, we find that all the services listed therein are such that they have not been physically performed i<\/p>\n = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Mahindra Holiday & Resorts India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise ChennaiService Tax2018 (11) TMI 1216 – CESTAT CHENNAI – 2019 (29) G. S. T. L. 343 (Tri. – Chennai)CESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 29-8-2018Appeal No. ST\/522\/2011 – Final Order No. 42343\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, … Continue reading “M\/s. Mahindra Holiday & Resorts India Ltd. Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Chennai”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15166","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15166","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15166"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15166\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15166"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15166"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15166"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2. Today, when the matter came up for hearing, on behalf of the appellant, ld. counsel Shri S. Thirumalai made oral and written submissions which can be broadly summarized as under:-
\n2.1 The demand raised under club or association service for levying service tax under import of services is not taxable since nowhere in the show cause notice, any evidence has been put forth to show that the services involved were partly or wholly performed in India.
\n2.2 Ld. counsel adverted to Board Circular dated 19.4.2006 (para 4.2.8) to submit that in the context of club or association service, the same should be physically performed in India (wholly or partly). The impugned services have not been physically performed in India either partly or wholly.
\n2.3 The value of the services alleged as taxable has been shown in the show cause notice as Rs. 4,21,56,951\/-. Ld. counsel submi<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n2.7 The demand of Rs. 16,75,189\/- in regard to professional fees pertains to legal expenses that is provided by service providers outside India. The said services were also for investment activities outside India though the amount was borne by the appellant. Merely because the appellant has borne the amount as a service provider as well as service recipient outside India, such demand on professional \/ legal fees cannot be subject to service tax.
\n2.8 The proceedings per se are hit by limitation for the reason that the transaction becomes revenue neutral. Ld. counsel adverted to the case law of Jet Airways Ltd. [2016-TIOL-2072-CESTAT-MUM] to support his contention. For the same reasons, ld. counsel submits that the penalties imposed are also unjustified.
\n3. On the other hand, ld. AR Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy reitera<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n