9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ogether with interest and the penalties levied under sections 75A, 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. Heard both the sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in the instant case is whether the services rendered by the applicants for M/s. Duphar Pharma after demerger and as per the Support Agreement dated 5-5-2001 can be considered as "Management Consultancy Services" provided by the applicants during the period from 1-4-2001 to 31-3-2002. 4. We have examined the position. As per the Support Agreement dated 5-5-2001, the applicants have provided the following services to M/s. Duphar Pharma:- 2. DUPHAR-INTERFRAN shall conduct/provide services on a need basis as per the directions, overall guidance of DUPHAR PHARMA and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in providing any service, either directly or indirectly, in connection with the management of any organisation in any manner and includes any person who renders any advice, consultancy or technical assistance, relating to conceptualizing, devising, development, modification, rectification or upgradation of any working system of any organization." The taxable service in relation to Management Consultant as defined in section 65(105)(r) of the Finance Act, 1994 means any service provided or to be provided "to a client, by a management consultant in connection with the management of any organization, in any manner;" 6. From the definition of the Management Consultant, it is clear that for the purpose of levy of service tax, any person who ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Nos. A/2634-2635/2008, dated 11-12-2008] (iv) CST v. Goetze (India) Ltd. [2009] 18 STT 28 (New Delhi-CESTAT). (v) CCE v. Arvind Narayan Prasad Nopany [Final Order No. A/1102/WZB/Ahd./2008 dated 27-5-2008] (Ahd.-CESTAT) (vi) CCE v. Sundaram Finance Ltd. [2007] 9 STT 100 (Chennai-CESTAT) (vii) Basti Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE [2007] 10 STT 107 (New Delhi-CESTAT); (viii) Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. CCE 2005 (188) ELT 171/[2005 1 STT 37 (Mum.-CESTAT); (ix) Maini Industrial Consultants v. CCE 2006 (2) STR 358 (Trib.); (x) CCE v. Aisco Engg. (P.) Ltd. 2006(1) STR 324 (Trib.); and (xi) Sara Services & Engineers (P.) Ltd. v. CCE [2009] 19 STT 192 (New Delhi-CESTAT). 8. We have perused the above case laws. We find that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
