TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (8) TMI 291
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unt of penalty. The appellant had rendered certain services to the Joint Venture Company, of which they were also a part. These services were rendered in terms of Article 2.1 of the 'Administrative Services Agreement' dated 30-3-1998 between the appellant and the Joint Venture Company. These services were specified under Article 2.1 ibid, as follows: "(a) Support for Land Acquisition and Development (b) Support for Payroll and benefit Administration (Provident Fund, Superannuation, Gratuity) (c) Support for Liaison with Banks and Financial Institutions (d) Support for Legal and Taxation services (e) Support for Human Resource Development & Training facilities (f) Communication infrastructure advisory services (g) Support for manpowe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... India - 2009 (14) S.T.R. 289 (Bom.). In the said case, the question was whether the services rendered by the members of the above association were to be classified as "mining services" for a period after 16- 5-08, the date on which "supply of tangible goods service" was introduced as a new taxable service under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994. In this context, the Hon'ble High Court held as under: "37. Entry (zzz is entirely a new entry. Whereas entry (zzzy) covers ser vices provided to any person in relation to mining of mineral, oil or gas, services covered by entry (zzzzj) can be identified by the presence of two characteristics namely (a) supply of tangible goods including machinery, equipment and appliances for use, (b) there is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....entry (zzzzj) the services rendered by the members of the 1st petitioner were not taxable. Creation of new entry is not by way of amending the earlier entry. It is not a carve out of the earlier entry. Therefore, the services rendered by the members of the lst petitioner cannot be brought to tax under that entry." In the above case, the Hon'ble High Court also noted with approval, the Tribunals decision in Diebold Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner -2008 (9) S.T.R. 546 (Tribunal) and in the case of Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2006 (3) S.T.R. 711 (Tribunal) = 2005 (188) E.L.T. 171 (Tribunal). Today the learned Counsel for the appellants has also relied on yet another decision of the Tribunal in Global Software Ltd....