9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anagement Consultant's Service/Corporate Finance services/solution services under the main head 'Income' for the period 2001-02 to 2003-05 for Rs. 1,82,83,448/- which is taxable under the head of 'Management Consultant's Service' as per the provisions of Section 65(65) of the Act. The appellant had not obtained service tax registration under the said category and no discharged their service tax liability of Rs. 13,30,250/- for providing such taxable service. By virtue of Noti. No 59/98-ST dt 16.10.98, the service provided by a practicing Chartered Consultant in connection with the management of any organisation in any manner shall be deemed to be the taxable service under the category of Management Consultant. As per Section 65(105)( r) of the Act, the taxable service means any service provided to a client, by a management consultancy in connection with the management of any organisation, in any manner. A statement of Shri Yogesh Ghanshyam Shah, Partner of M/s C C Chokshi & Co., Ahmedabad who is a partner of appellant was recorded on 17.10.05, 20.10.05 & 01.09.06 wherein he inter-alia admitted that his company has provided services like audit, tax audit, matter relating to direct ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he required details to the authorities. It is his submission that when the audits have been conducted and the authorities are aware of the issues, there is no valid reason for authorities to issue show cause notice by invoking larger period. For this proposition he relies upon : i) Agro Pack v CCE,Surat - 2009(240)EL.135 ii) Shree Ram Multi Tech Ltd v. CCE Ahmedabad - 2009(238) ELT.699 iii) Shree Uma Foundries Pvt Ltd v. CCE, Kolkatta - 2008(222)ELT.317, and iv) Suvikram Plastics (P) Ltd v. Bangalore - 2008(225)ELT.282 4.1 It is his submission that the appellant is a practicing Chartered Accountant firm providing services out of India and receiving the payment in convertible foreign exchange which are not repatriated out of India. It is his submission that during the disputed period, i.e., April 2001-March 2005 the authorities have demanded service tax on certain transactions alleging that the consideration for the said transactions is not received in con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; a. B.S,R & Co v. CCE, Gurgaon - CST-2013(30)STR242 (Tri.del.) b. Ernst &Young Pvt Ltd v. CST 2012(27)STR.462 (Tri.Del) c. Basti Sugar Mills Co Ltd v. CCE (2007)10.STT.107 (New Delhi-CESTAT) 4.4 He would also rely upon the judgement of the Tribunal in the case of Sridhar & Santhanam v. CCE, Chennai - 2009(14)STR.756 (Tri.Chennai), Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd v. CCE Mumbai - 2006(3)STR.711 (Tri.Mumbai) and Jyoti Ltd v. CCE, Vadodara - 2008(9)STR.373 (Tri.Ahmd.) for the proposition. 5. Ld DR strongly defended the impugned order. It is submission that the appellant has been providing the various services to the appellants client which would fall under the category of management consultancy services. It is his submission that the action taken by the appellants client based upon the advice given or the reports submitted would definitely fall under the category of management consultancy services. It is his submission that the show cause notice is not hit by limitations as the appellants accounts were audited and it was found that there is escape ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tification No 15/2002-ST dated 1st Aug, 2002 and subsequent period. 10.1 The appellant is a practicing Chartered accountant and has been registered with the authorities as such. We find that during the period prior to 1.8.2002, the Chartered Accountant services were liable to be taxed and Notification No. 59/98-ST dtd 16.8.1998 specifically exempted the taxable services provided by the practicing Chartered Accountant or a Company Secretary or a Cost Accountant; services which are rendered to a client other than taxable services which were enumerated in the said Notification. In our considered view, the interpretation put forth by the appellant of the said notification are acceptable, as the services which are in question in this case are not covered under the said Notification 59/98-ST till 1.8.2002. This view has been taken by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Sridhar & Santhanam (Supra) wherein Tribunal held as under: I have considered the case records and the rival submissions. The dispute to be resolved in this case relates to the Notification No. 15/2002-Service Tax dated 1st August, 2002 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inabove. No. 8. We find that the said services may not be covered under the Management Consultant Services as these services are not in nature of providing consultancy or advice for improving management of the business entity. We find that our above view is covered and fortified by the decision that the Tribunal in the case of BSR and Co (Supra) wherein it was held as under. The Tribunal has been holding that only services in the nature of providing consultancy or advices for improving the Management of a business entity only will be covered by the definition and not executory type of responsibilities of management got done through another agency. For example collection of bad debts is a responsibility of a Management. If somebody is engaged for collecting bad debts the person engaged cannot be considered to be providing Management or Business Consultancy Services. Though the definition at Section 65(65) includes any service in connection with management of any organization, the scope of the definition gets restricted to services in relation to consultancy as is evident from the name given to the service and commercial understanding of the expression 'Management or Business Consul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
