2015 (10) TMI 456 - AT - Service Tax

Management Consultant Service - Activities of business promotion and support, customer care, product launching, customer education program and energy consultancy - Appellant contends the scope of work to be considered as Business Promotion and Support Services, Customer Care, Product Launching, Customer Education Program and Energy Consultancy Appellant further holds jurisdiction to raise demand is with Central Excise or Service Tax Commissionerate, New Delhi and not with Allahabad Central Excise Commissionerate Further contends there was no suppression or wilful mis-statement Held That - Contention of the Appellant in regards to jurisdiction is valid - Service rendered, as described by the Appellant, is so sketchy that by the said description it is impossible to classify the said service and Revenue made no effort to state any reason how the same gets covered under Management Consultant Service - Impugned demand cannot be sustained and appeal is allowed Decided in favour of the Appellant.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against service tax demand for "Management Consultant Service" upheld by Order-in-Appeal.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the jurisdiction of Allahabad Central Excise Commissionerate to issue the Show Cause Notice, arguing that the agreement was between M/s. ABB Alstom Power India Ltd. and the head office located in New Delhi, and services were rendered there. The appellant cited the Supreme Court judgment in Indian Oil Corporation case to support that longer periods for tax demand require deliberate withholding of information. Additionally, the appellant argued that the services provided did not fall under "Management Consultancy Service" but could be classified under other taxable services introduced in later years.

2. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's jurisdictional argument, noting that the agreement and services were based in New Delhi, outside the jurisdiction of Allahabad Commissionerate. Moreover, the lower authorities failed to analyze how the services provided aligned with the definition of "Management Consultant" under the Finance Act, 1994. The services listed in the agreement, such as business promotion, customer care, product launching, customer education program, and energy consultancy, did not fit within the scope of Management Consultancy Service. The Tribunal emphasized that the Revenue had not demonstrated how the services fell under the taxable category, highlighting the lack of evidence or reasoning to support the classification. As the onus is on the Revenue to establish the classification of services, the Tribunal concluded that the demand could not be upheld.

3. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order. The decision was based on the lack of jurisdiction of the Allahabad Commissionerate, the failure to demonstrate how the services provided constituted Management Consultancy Service, and the absence of evidence supporting the classification of services under the taxable category.