9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 169X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,150/- against the appellant M/s SKF Ltd. by classifying the services received by them under 'Business Auxiliary Service' and confirming service tax demand on reverse charge basis along with interest thereon and also imposing equivalent amount of penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The period of demand is from 18/04/2006 to 15/05/2008. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us. 3. The learned consultant for the appellant submits that the demand has two parts. The first part of the demand relates to Rs. 3,76,03,804/- in respect of IT services received by the appellant from M/s. SKF, Sweden and the second part of the demand consist of an amount of Rs. 1,63,04,213/- is in respect of various expenditure incurred by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... zzze) to any person, by any other person in relation to information technology software for use in the course, furtherance, business or commerce include,-- (i) development of information technology software, (ii) study, analysis, design and programming of information technology software, (iii) adaptation, upgradation, enhancement, implementation and other similar services related to information technology software, (iv) providing advice, consultancy and assistance on matters related to information technology software, including conducting feasibility studies on implementation of a system, specifications for a database design, guidance and assistance during the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of installation, commissioning and system integration of IT systems etc. would fall within the category of 'Information Technology Services'. The ratio of the said decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Accordingly he prays for setting aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 4. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, reiterates the findings of the adjudicating authority. It is his contention that these services received by the appellant would qualify as 'customer care services' and, therefore, would be leviable to service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Services' and therefore, he pleads for upholding the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... its own use and not for providing any service to any other party. Therefore, the argument of the Revenue that the services received would fall within the ambit of 'customer care' is totally bereft of any logic and devoid of any merit. 5.2 As regards the demand of Rs. 1.63 crores for the various services received, even though the appellant had explained the nature of the services and the payments made before the adjudicating authority in their letter dated 09/02/2011, the adjudicating authority has not considered these submissions at all while passing the impugned order. In any case, we notice that the various services received do not come anywhere near the definition of 'business auxiliary service' or 'customer care service' a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
