9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 213X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vice" under Section 65(105)(zzzze) of the Finance Act 1994. This service became taxable with effect from 16/5/2008 only. Admittedly, the appellant has paid service tax under the Head “IT Software Service” from 16/5/2008. In the case of SAP India Ltd. (2010 (9) TMI 289 - CESTAT, BANGALORE) the question whether the same activity could be alternatively classified as maintenance or repair of software was examined by a coordinate Bench and the same was answered in the negative. Also in EBZ Online Pvt. Ltd. (2010 (12) TMI 101 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) was decided in favour of assessee, following the decision in SAP India case. Thus the appellant seems to have reasons to claim support from the said decisions of this Tribunal. Also the reasons stated b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t to evade payment of service tax . It was in adjudication of this show-Cause notice that the impugned order was passed by the Commissioner. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant referred to a specimen agreement (Software and Services agreement) executed by the appellant with one of their customers and submitted, on the basis of its provisions, that the appellant was providing "Information Technology Software service" which was not taxable prior to 16/5/2008. He submitted that it was therefore not open to the department to demand service tax under the Head "Management, Maintenance or Repair service" or under any other Head for the period of dispute. He submitted that the appellant was paying service tax under the Head "Information Tech ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny valid reason. He also argued that there was no legally sustainable ground in this case for invoking the extended period of limitation. Finally he prayed for waiver and stay. 3. The learned Commissioner (A.R.) reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority. Referring to the assessee's claim for the benefit of Notification No. 12/03-ST, he submitted that such benefit could not be granted in the absence of actual sale of goods in the course of rendering of service to the customers. According to him, the transfer of goods involved in the subject transaction was only a deemed sale. The benefit of the above notification was not admissible to such deemed sale. 4. After giving careful consideration to the submissions, we have found pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
