Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.39 seconds)
Aircom International India Pvt Ltd vs Delhi on 5 December, 2024 cites

Union Of India vs M/S Intercontinental Consultants And ... on 7 March, 2018

20. Coming to the demand on the Head of "Maintenance or Repair Service", the appellant submits that as per Part A of the Schedule 1 16 ST/59917/2013 to the Contact, the fee payable to the licensor includes fee for the license of the software, the fee payable by the customer for the support and maintenance and fee payable by the customer for the technical support by the licensee; Part B of Schedule 1 specifies that Aircom International Company U.K. shall be entitled to invoice the appellant for the cost of providing any technical support. From this, it is clear that whenever Aircom International Company U.K has provided technical support, the appellant is required to raise an invoice and Aircom International Company U.K. pays for the same; the appellant pleads that charges for such support service are already included in the 45% and the 20% payable to Aircom International Company U.K; therefore, the same cannot be treated as provision of any service by Aircom International Company U.K. to the appellant for which they have to pay service tax on Reverse Charge Mechanism; it is immaterial that the appellant treats the same in their books of accounts. Similarly, the appellant pleads that the expenses of training and coaching were also included in the license fee charged for the use of software; as no separate charges are collected, no service tax is liable to be paid. In respect of service tax demand on consultancy charges, the appellant pleads that the same is nothing but sharing of expenses and reimbursable expenses. They rely on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Regarding the service tax credit denied to the appellants, the appellant contends that the CENVAT credit has been denied for the reason that the same is received in the premises which is not registered.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 91 - A K Sikri - Full Document
1   2 3 Next