9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2004 to 31/03/2006. It is on certain amounts collected by the appellant from Birla Institute of Technology and Science (BITS, for short), Pilani for the services rendered to them under an agreement dt. 06/02/2005 entered into with them. We have examined the records including the said agreement and have also heard both sides. The agreement produced by the appellant is one dt. 06/02/2005 and the same, inter alia, states the scope of the services, the fees for such services etc. According to this agreement, the appellant was required to provide customized software and infrastructure to conduct tests at different designated test centres in India for BITS, Pilani. One of the schedules to this agreement contains the structure of fees to be paid b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the amounts shown as value of 'exempted services other than exports" in the relevant returns was not taxable inasmuch as such amount did not have anything to do with 'management consultant's service' as defined under the Act. In any case, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the material information was supplied to the Department in 2006 itself and, therefore, the demand raised in June, 2008 is heavily time-barred. On this issue, it is submitted by the learned Superintendent (AR) that the period of limitation has to be reckoned with reference to the due date for filing returns and, in this view of the matter, the demand cannot be said to be time-barred. 3. Both sides have addressed the substantial issue also with reference t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the inclusion part of the above definition. Prima facie, the findings recorded by the authorities below are not categorical on this aspect. In this scenario, we have examined the limitation issue also. We find that it is not in dispute that the entire amount was included by the appellant in their ST-3 returns, albeit as non-taxable. They also declared in their returns that these amounts were based on their books of accounts. At the stage of audit objection, they produced these books of accounts including the agreement, which was in July, 2006. Nevertheless, the show-cause notice came to be issued only in June 2008. This delay is not satisfactorily explained in the show-cause notice or in the Order-in-original or in the Order-in-Appeal. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
