9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 375X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he name of the respondent may be shown as Commissioner of Service Tax Chennai This M.A. Allowed. 2. The applicant was providing certain services to software companies like M/s. TCS Ltd and M/s. Infosys Ltd. A dispute arose between the applicant and the Department as to whether the services were in the nature of manpower supply or in the nature of information technology services. Information Technology Service became taxable only from 16.6.2008. The Department was of the view that the services were in the nature of manpower supply which had became taxable from 16.6.2005 itself. Since the applicant had not paid any service tax for the period 16.6.2005 to 31.03.2009, three show-cause notices were issued demanding service tax short-paid and on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... particulars of each invoice relating to supply of services to units in SEZ were furnished before the adjudicating authority and the adjudicating authority refused to give the exemption only for the reason that the Development Commissioner of SEZ had issued certificate of utilization to TCS/Infosys and not in the name of the applicant. The counsel submits that the certificate has to be accepted because they were only sub-contractors to TCS/Infosys and those companies in turn issued certificates tot eh effect that the services of the applicant were used in SEZ. 5. Opposing the prayer, the learned AR for Revenue submits that the applicant have not placed on record the details of any software that they developed or any deliverables in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Diksha Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Bangalore 2011 (21) STR 614, 100% predeposit was ordered by the Tribunal. 7. As a rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicant submits that in the case of M/s. Sasken Communication Technologies Ltd., vide Misc. Order No. 25466/2013 dated 27.3.2013 in Appeal No. ST/2079/2013, the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal accepted the offer of predeposit of 10%. 8. We have considered arguments from both sides. The question as to whether a particular contract is for 'manpower supply' or for supply of 'information technology service' has to be seen with reference to the facts of each contract. Prima facie, on scrutiny of the contract, we are of the view that the contracts involved are for supply of manpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
