9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 1422X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... deductions from demand confirmed has not been presented before the adjudicating authority and we are not in a position to accept the chart at this stage - Conditional stay granted. - ST/247/2010 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2013 - P K Das and Mathew John, JJ. For the Appellant : Shri N Venkataraman, Sr. Counsel Shri M S Krishna Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri K S V V Prasad, JC (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: Mathew John: The applicant is engaged in different activities in the field of Information Technology. They had entered into a contract with Infosys and TCS. The scope of these contracts is claimed to be for software developing by the applicant. Revenue contests that the scope of the contract was for manpower supply. Software dev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te, another matter was heard and order was passed by Tribunal in the case of Cognizant Technology Solutions (India) Ltd Vs. CCE reported in 2010 (18) STR 326 (Tri.-Chen.), in which case, the appeal was allowed holding that it is a case of software developing rather than a case of manpower supply. According to him, there is a contradiction between these two orders passed on the same date and therefore he submits that the order passed by the Tribunal for the previous period in the case of the applicant is not correct and the applicant has challenged the order before the Supreme Court and the matter is pending before the Supreme Court. The facts of the present case is that the applicants had submitted all the task orders but Commissioner has n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany. He points out that Cognizant Technology Services (India) Ltd, the appellant themselves were a major software developer and their client, Pfizer Pharmaceuticals (India) Private Limited, was not a software developer. He argues that on the same date, two orders were passed by the Tribunal. So it is all the more clear that the Tribunal had gone through the details of the contracts and passed a conscious orders and not arbitrary orders. He prays that since the issue has already been decided against the applicant in their own case, there should be a pre-deposit 100% of the tax for admission of the appeal. The Ld. AR submits that he does not agree with the figure of Rs. 24 lakhs on account of services supplied to SEZ because before the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
