2008 (12) TMI 72 - AT - Service Tax

Appellant provided technical man power to wholly owned subsidiary appellant also charge a management fee of 2% on the turnover of company taken over by subsidiary for managerial services in the area of general management marketing technical and commercial submission that only advisory services are liable and not executive services - appellant submission that their activity not amounts to Management Consultancy services but it is Management service is acceptable

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of consultancy vs. managerial services, applicability of extended period for invoking demand of duty, consideration of specific clauses in the agreement for determining nature of services provided.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the nature of services provided by the Appellant to a subsidiary company. The Appellant contended that the services rendered were managerial in nature, not consultancy. The Appellant referred to specific clauses in the agreement, highlighting the provision for a management fee of 2% on the turnover of the subsidiary for services in general management, marketing, technical, and commercial areas. The Appellant argued that this arrangement did not amount to management consultancy but was purely managerial services. The Appellant also emphasized that technical manpower expenses were separately charged as per the agreement, indicating a distinct service provision. The Appellant relied on various tribunal decisions to support their argument, distinguishing between advisory and executive services.

The Appellant further contended that the extended period should not have been invoked as there was a genuine belief that the services provided did not constitute management consultancy. The Appellant argued that the specific clauses in the agreement clearly outlined the nature of services as managerial, not consultancy. The Appellant's position was supported by the absence of evidence from the Revenue to demonstrate that the services rendered were indeed consultancy services.

The Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented, found merit in the Appellant's contentions. The Tribunal agreed with the Appellant's interpretation that the services provided were managerial in nature, not consultancy. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence from the Revenue to establish the provision of consultancy services. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the Appellant and providing consequential relief. The judgment emphasized the importance of interpreting specific clauses in agreements to determine the nature of services provided and highlighted the distinction between consultancy and managerial services.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, delivered by Member (T), B.S.V. Murthy, resolved the dispute by determining that the services provided by the Appellant to the subsidiary were managerial, not consultancy, based on the specific clauses in the agreement and the absence of evidence demonstrating consultancy services. The Tribunal's decision to allow the appeal underscored the significance of interpreting contractual terms to ascertain the nature of services rendered in such cases.