Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

[Emphasis supplied]

20. It is clear from the aforesaid two decisions that section 66A (1) refers to 'service provider' and 'service recipient' as 'persons' which would mean different business persons. Section 66A(2) and its Explanation I only fix service tax liability on a recipient of service under a reverse charge mechanism by treating the permanent establishments in India and abroad as separate persons. This only clarifies whether a service is provided and consumed in India or abroad. If the 'permanent establishment' is treated as a 'service provider' to its own head office in India then it will amount to charging service tax for an activity provided to own self. Therefore, a comprehensive reading of Section 66A of the Act, would indicate that a permanent establishment situated abroad as a 'separate person', is ST/40063/2016 only to determine whether the provision of service is in India or out of India. The contention of the Appellant, therefore, deserves to be accepted.

11. In light of the aforesaid decisions of this Tribunal, we are not persuaded to take a different view and we hold that the demand of service tax on the entire reimbursed amount of expenses of these overseas offices under reverse charge mechanism, confirmed invoking Rule 5(1) of the Service tax (Determination of Value) Rules 2006, on the allegation that the appellant is receiving business support services, save for that which already stood conceded by the appellant, is untenable and cannot sustain. For the aforesaid reasons, we find that the decisions relied upon ST/40063/2016 by the Ld. A.R also do not advance the Respondent's case in any manner. Further, we do not find any merits in the submission of the Ld. A.R. that the matter may also require verification whether the payments were indeed made for the purposes stated and are in fact on actuals, and therefore it may be remitted back to the adjudicating authority for the said purpose. When the impugned show cause notice itself characterises the remittances as reimbursements and when the Order in Original also recognizes and acknowledges these payments as reimbursements while confirming the demand, such apprehensions expressed are wholly misplaced.