9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1176X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... seen that even if there is promotion of business of facilities of IHC, as already noted, the increased income is always shared by both the parties. In such situation, it will involve self service also. Admittedly, any promotion or marketing of IHC facilities will directly benefit the appellant as GOR is shared. Mandap keeper service - benefit of abatement - Held that: - the appellant is eligible for abated rate of duty as they have reversed the cenvat credit availed during the material time, fully. As such, the bar on claiming on such exemption is no more applicable. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/3896/2012, ST/56277/2013 & ST/53144/2015 - ST/A/50428-50430/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 20-1-2017 - Mr. S.K. Mohanty, Member (Judicial) And Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri V. Lakshmikumaran, Advocate for the appellant. Rep. by Shri Sanjay Jain, DR for the respondent. Per B. Ravichandran: These three appeals are covering same service tax dispute and hence are taken up together for disposal. The appellant is registered with Service Tax Department for providing various taxable services and were engaged in managing and oper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gement of the facilities available with IHC with the expertise of the appellant. The gross consideration received was shared on a set proportion between the appellant and IHC. IHC is merely reimbursing the expenses incurred by the appellant for managing the facilities. (b) The appellant is not providing any service to IHC neither they have received any consideration towards such service. The transactions between IHC and the appellant are on a revenue sharing basis, principal to principal and there is no service element. Reference was made to specific clauses in the agreement. (c) Activities undertaken by the appellant do not fall under the category of BAS . The impugned order holding clause (i) and (vi) of Section 65(19) are applicable to the activities is erroneous and without factual support. There is no provision of service on behalf of the client. In terms of the agreement, the operation and management of the facilities, at the premises of IHC, is undertaken by the appellant. In such operation, the appellant received services and the goods as per the specifications in Annexure-Il to the agreement. Such expenses incurred were re-imbursed by IHC upto a specified limit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be created by the appellant. It is stipulated that all assets comprised in the facilities shall always be the properties of IHC. The responsibilities of each party to the agreement have been elaborately listed in the said agreement. The appellant's responsibilities are listed in Article V. They shall be responsible for efficient management and operation of the said facilities to high standards. They shall provide internal maintenance, janitorial, security services, guest house facilities, convention centre and conference facilities, restaurants, etc. They shall, at their own cost and expenses, provide adequate staff to discharge the obligations. IHC's responsibilities are listed in Article VI. They are to provide initial par stock as per the list attached. IHC shall provide all fixtures and furnishers. A committee with representatives from appellant will decide on the tariff, quality control, etc. for the facilities. IHC shall also obtain and manage at their cost all the requisite licenses and permission for operating the facilities in the premises. They also provided external maintenance, common area maintenance, replacement of capital equipments, fire fighting, telepho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s that the plea that appellant did not make any profit in this arrangement does not take away the tax liability. It was recorded that the appellant provided combination of different services and their services are to be categorized under clause (i) and (vi) of BAS . The first category deals with promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client. In this particular case, no such goods have been identified, which belonged to IHC and the marketing of the same has been done by the appellant. Regarding Clause (vi), provisions of Servi0e on behalf of the client, it is seen that as per the agreement both IHC and the appellants were jointly engaged in running the activities at IHC. It is not brought out in the impugned order under which terms of the agreement the appellant can be categorized for providing services on behalf of the IHC. We could not find any such arrangement in the terms of the contract. In the overall scope of the contract, certain obligations were given to the appellants for which they are receiving a percentage of GOR. One of the obligations is to manage security, cleaning, promotional services. These are provided by various cont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
