9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (8) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty Right Services (IPR) - HELD THAT:- The intellectual Property Services have become exigible to Service Tax with effect from 10.09.2004. Accordingly the confirmed demand of Rs. 1,30,28,482 for the period of October, 2004 to December, 2010 and Rs. 29,52,461 for the period of January, 20111 to March, 2012 are legally not sustainable and the same is set aside on merits. Business Auxiliary services - Job-work charges - HELD THAT:- It is found from the documentary evidence that the finished goods are emerging after the job work in terms of Sec 2(f) of the CEA 1944. Therefore, the same would not amount to rendering of service in BAS Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, the confirmed demand of Rs. 3,15,625 and Rs. 4,36,398 are being set aside on merits. Banking and financial services - HELD THAT:- It is found that no such services was rendered by the holding company to the appellant. The banking charges paid by the holding company initially was recovered from the present appellant. It cannot be viewed that banking and financial services were rendered by the company. It is also to be noted that transaction is between the company and the appellant which would amount to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nts: Appeal No.ST/75036/2013 Sl No. Service Tax Demanded on Service Tax including Cess Period 1. Management Consultancy Services 1,44,96,485.00 January 2008 to December 2010 2. Intellectual Property Services 1,30,28,482.00 October 2004 to December 2010 3. Banking Financial Services 3,39,652.00 January 2006 to December 4. Job Work Charges under Business Auxiliary Services 3,15,625.00 April 2009 to March 2011 Appeal No.ST/76479/2018 Sl. No. Service Tax Demanded on Service Tax including Cess Period 1. Management Consultancy Services 4,32,156.00 January 2011 to March 2012 2. Intellectual Property Services 29,52,461.00 January 2011 to March 2012 3. Job Work Charges under Business Auxiliary Services 4,36,398.00 April 2011 to March 2012 2. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands. Being aggrieved the appellant is before the Tribunal. 3. The Ld. Consultant appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that for the Management Consultancy charges paid to their overseas holding company i.e Landis Gyr Energy Management Corporation, Switzerland, the appellant has been properly discharging the Service Tax in respect of the consultancy provided by the company to the Joka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmits that even on this count, the confirmed demand of Rs. 1,44,96,485/- for the period January, 2008 to December, 2010 and Rs. 432156/- for the period January, 2011 to March, 2012 are required to be set aside on merits. 5. In respect of the confirmed demand under the heading of Intellectual Property services (IPR), the Ld. Consultant submits that the IPR services became exigible to Service Tax with effect from 10.09.2004 only, whereas the Agreements with the holding company were signed on 13.09.1992 and 10.08.2004. In terms of this Agreement, the appellant has been paying Royalty charges to the holding company for the goods manufactured and cleared by them every year. He takes us through the Agreements annexed page no. 145 to 207 and 207 to 215 of the Appeal Book. On going through the Agreements, it is seen that the first Agreement has been entered into between the holding company and the present appellant on the 10th September, 1992. As per clause 12.02 of this Agreement, Royalty is required to be paid at the rate of 3% /5% of the value of the manufactured goods sold by the appellant for the business granted to them by their holding company. The second Agreement is dated 10.08.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- for the period of April,2009 to March, 2011 and Rs. 4,36,398 for the period of April, 2011 to March, 2012 is required to be set aside on merits. 8. In respect of banking and finance services, the Ld. Consultant submits that the holding company arranges for working finance for the subsidiary units including the present appellant located in India. For the banking charges incurred by the company, towards the bank guarantees given on behalf of the Indian company, they charge this amount on the appellant. This amount is paid by the holding company towards banking charges incurred abroad and they are getting reimbursement from the Indian company. This amount is not towards any services rendered by the Foreign company to the Indian company, but the amount is given to them only on account of the reimbursement of the bank charges incurred by them. Therefore, he submits that in the absence of any service being provided by the company and absence of any service provider service giver relationship between the holding company and the present appellant, the confirmed demand is not legally sustainable. He prays that the same may be set aside on merits. The appellant relies on the case law of P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allows the department to come to a conclusion that the appellant provided any service to the Baddi unit. Therefore, on this count itself, the confirmed demand of Rs. 1,44,964,85 is required to be set aside and we do so. 13. Further he also see force in the appellant s arguments that the Baddi unit, Joka unit the appellant are one and a same entity. In such a situation there cannot be a case of service being provided by the Appellant to the Baddi unit towards Management consultancy. Even if it is taken hypothetically that in services have been provided, it will amount to self service and therefore, no Service Tax liability would arise. Therefore, we set aside the demand of Rs. 1,44,96,485/- and 4,32,156/-. 14. In respect of the confirmed demand towards IPR services on going through the documentary evidence produced by way of the Agreements, we find that the Agreements have been entered into the between the appellant company and the appellant on 13.09.1992 and on 10.8.2004. We find that in the case of Switzer Instruments Ltd. Vs. CST, Chennai [2010(17) STR(167) (tri-Chennai) the Tribunal has held as under: 2. I have heard both sides and carefully perused the Manufacturing Licensing A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
