9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (12) TMI 184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... EMBER R. Raghavan and M. Kannan for the Appellant. V.V. Hariharan for the Respondent. ORDER Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member - These two appeals relate to two different periods - October, 1998 to March, 2000 and April, 2000 to September, 2001. The related show-cause notices have been issued on 9-5-2001 and 28-1-2002. The issue involved in both the cases is the same and hence both t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty undertaken by the appellants does not amount to 'management consultancy service'. However, he states that the appellants are agreeable to pay the tax demanded but pray for waiver of the penalties imposed. He argues that the related contracts were executed well before the levy of service tax on 'management consultancy service' and the appellants were under the bona fide belief that the activitie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of staff comes under 'manpower supply service' and not under 'management consultancy service' is acceptable. We also note that for such services the appellants are paying service tax under manpower supply service for the subsequent period after the same has been brought under tax net. Accordingly, we set aside the demands amounting to Rs. 7,23,254 and Rs. 5,30,934. As regards the balance amounts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... easonable cause for their failure to take registration and pay the tax amounts in respect of the new levy on management consultancy service. Accordingly, in terms of section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, we waive the penalties imposed under sections 76, 77 and 78 of the said Act. 6. In the result, the demands of Rs. 4,73,786.80 and Rs. 3,44,130 are upheld and the demand for the balance amounts ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
