Just a moment...
We've upgraded AI Search on TaxTMI with two powerful modes:
1. Basic
• Quick overview summary answering your query with references
• Category-wise results to explore all relevant documents on TaxTMI
2. Advanced
• Includes everything in Basic
• Detailed report covering:
- Overview Summary
- Governing Provisions [Acts, Notifications, Circulars]
- Relevant Case Laws
- Tariff / Classification / HSN
- Expert views from TaxTMI
- Practical Guidance with immediate steps and dispute strategy
• Also highlights how each document is relevant to your query, helping you quickly understand key insights without reading the full text.
Help Us Improve - by giving the rating with each AI Result:
Powered by Weblekha - Building Scalable Websites
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
This issue has been addressed by the CESTAT in a recent case (reported in 2008 -TMI - 30858 - CESTAT NEW DELHI)
In this case:
(a) The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of oil field equipment. M/s Varco Sara (India) Pvt. Limited is a sister concern of the appellant with some common Directors and under common management. The appellant has rendered services to the sister concern in various areas like procurement of raw materials, undertaking certain job work, permitting use of certain facilities of the appellant company like telephone, reception etc.
(b) The original authority held that the activities undertaken by the appellant would amount to rendering "management consultant services" and accordingly confirmed demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,43,564/- relating to the period April 2999 to March 2002 and imposed penalties under sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1944. Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the order of the original authority.
After hearing the arguments, CESTAT held that:
No doubt, that the appellant is rendering a variety of services to M/s Varco Sara (India) Pvt. Limited in areas like procurement of raw material, packing of finished goods, documentation etc. in addition to undertaking job work. The activities are in the nature of providing some employees undertaking certain job work, procuring raw materials, sharing certain common facilities and sharing the expenses, etc. procurement of raw material. All these activities, in our considered opinion, will not amount to rendering management consultant service. Therefore, we hold that they cannot be held as rendering the management consultant service.
(For full text of judgment - visit 2008 -TMI - 30858 - CESTAT NEW DELHI)
Management consultant services: routine procurement, job work and shared facilities do not qualify as such for service tax. The tribunal held that providing employees for job work, procuring raw materials, packing, documentation, sharing facilities and expenses between related companies are operational support and cost-sharing arrangements and do not qualify as management consultant services for service tax purposes.Press 'Enter' after typing page number.