9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 788X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal itself may be decided without pending the same because of recurring nature of the matter. 2. This appeal arose against the first Appellate Order dated 28.06.10 confirming service tax demand of Rs. 16,14,624/- for the period from 10.09.04 onwards holding that the appellant had provided business auxiliary service. While coming to such conclusion, Ld. Appellate Authority has recorded the fact that M/s Sai Computer Pvt. Ltd. has three sister units. One is Sai Electricals Ltd., second is Sai Computer Consultancy and third one is M/s IT Energy Services. The consolidated Balance Sheet of M/s Sai Computer Pvt. Ltd. incorporated accounts of these three units. It was also recorded that M/s IT Energy Services was engaged in preparation and issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice'. He reduced the demand to the extent indicated in the appeal order while adjudication resulted in tax demand of Rs. 29,18,931/- finding certain receipts not related to the appellant even though such amount was clubbed in the consolidated Balance Sheet of the company. 3.1 Ld. Advocate Shri Anand appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that entire work that was embodied in the scope of work of agreement (appearing at page 27 of the appeal folder) was undertaken by the appellant for UP Power Corporation Ltd. and the services enumerated in the said scope of work was carried out to serve UP Power Corporation Ltd. Inviting attention to page 75 of the appeal folder containing show-cause notice, he submitted that there are three sis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was liable to service tax from 01.05.06, it sought registration and deposited service tax. In the show-cause notice at page 4, through sub-para (11), the liability of the present appellant was called for reply. 3.3 According to the appellant, it was different entity registering itself under law, had received its payment from UP Power Corporation providing service to the said Corporation. The appellant did not serve clients of UP Power Corporation Ltd. It had only contractual obligation to carry out the activities listed in the scope of work under agreement. The appellant had not at all served the clients of the corporation. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant had provided services on behalf of its clients while it provided se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etween UP Power Corporation Ltd. and the appellant on 13.03.2001 and existing at page 26 of the appeal record. We noticed that the agreement was signed by Sai Computer Consultancy, which is the appellant, with the corporation. There was no contract entered into by UP Power Corporation Ltd. with Sai Computer Pvt. Ltd. Show-cause notice was issued to Sai Computer Consultancy only without lifting corporate veil to show that the principal company itself catered to the need of UP Power Corporation Ltd. and served clients of the Corporation. There was no such allegation to grant opportunity of defence. 5.3 We found that when the facts recorded in the appellate order is that a different sister unit, i.e., IT Energy was preparing and issuing regul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ration Ltd. throws light on the scope of work executed by the appellant. This clearly indicates the nature of activity carried out by the appellant (appearing at page 27 of the appeal folder vide clause-1). Reading of scope of work throws light that the appellant's obligation was to be discharged to UP Power Corporation Ltd. only. There is no evidence on record to suggest that all these services were provided to the clients of UP Power Corporation Ltd. on its behalf. In absence of any contrary evidence, obligation of the appellant under contract can be held to have been discharged to the UP Power Corporation Ltd. only but not to the clients thereof. When the client of the appellant was UP Power Corporation Ltd., it cannot be held that the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... show-cause notice. In the absence of such a charge and authorities not having proceeded with that concept the appellant succeeds holding that mere appearance of the figures of the appellant in the consolidated Balance Sheet of Sai Computer Pvt. Ltd. ipso facto does not bring the appellant to the fold law when the appellant was recognized by Authorities as a distinct entity. In view of the aforesaid discussion and finding, the first appellate order is set aside and the appeal succeeds. 5.7 For the peculiar facts of the present case as discussed above, the citations made by the appellant being on different factual context that is not profitable to the appellant. 6. In the result, both stay application and appeal are disposed allowing the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
