TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (9) TMI 344
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvices are : 1. PRO - Calcutta Office 2. Imports - Calcutta Office 3. Canteen 4. Creche 5 Establishment 6 Finance (Wages. Time Keeping) 7. PRO - Jamshedpur 8. Personnel (excl. IR activities) 9. Safely 10. Education 11. Town Services 12. Training 13. Transport - General (Buses and ambulance) 14. General Administration 15. Medical and Health 16. Publications 17. Rural and Community development 18. Suggestions Committee 19. Sports 20. Finance (other than above) 21. Internal Audit 22. Legal Services 23. SAP Project (on basis of modules implemented) 24. Management Services (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as service rendered to the clients. Further, he has submitted that all the facts were within the knowledge of the Department being communicated in 2007 by one of their associate company to the department, hence extended period of limitation cannot be invoked and accordingly the demand is barred by limitation. He has further submitted that the entire exercise is of revenue neutrality as whatever service tax payable by the Applicant would be available as CENVAT Credit to their associate/subsidiary companies. In support of his arguments, he has referred to the judgements of this Tribunal in the case of Air Liquide North India (P) Ltd. v. Commr. of Central Excise, Jaipur reported in 2012 (27) S.T.R. 295 (Tri.-Del.), Lanco Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupathi reported in 2010 (255) E.L.T. 275 (Tri.-Bang.), Reliance Industries Ltd. v. Commr. of Customs vide its Order No. S-816/2012/CSTB/C-I, dated 28-5-2012, Alok Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-I Order No. S-965/2012/CSTB/C-I, dated 11-7-2012 and the Order of Bombay High Court in M/s. Vidarbha Iron & Steel Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur vide Central Excise Appeal (L) No.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....corded that the applicants were availing the CENVAT credit of duty paid input services received by them in relation to providing the said output services to their associate/subsidiary companies, which itself indicates that they were aware of their service tax liability on the said service, but knowingly did not discharge the service tax during the relevant period. He has further submitted that the issue of revenue neutrality cannot by itself be the ground in allowing the Stay Application. He has submitted that balance of convenience and the interest of Revenue as per Section 35F of CEA, 1944 are also to be considered in view of the principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court series of cases and by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Guntur v. Shri Chaitanya Educational Committee - 2011 (22) S.T.R. 135 (A.P.), SQL Star International Ltd. v. CC - 2012 (276) E.L.T. 465 (A.P.) = 2012 (25) S.T.R. 113 (A.P.) and Calcutta High Court in Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, Kolkata - 2011 (263) E.L.T. 195 (Cal.) = 2011 (21) S.T.R. 11 (Cal.). 8. Heard both sides at length and perused the records. It is not in dispu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the said argument, mainly for two reasons. Firstly, an apparent analysis of the conditions of the Agreement and the list of services annexed thereto, vis-a-vis the definition of 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' as was in force during the relevant period, it would be difficult to accept that these services have been rendered by the Applicant and availed by their associate/subsidiary not in relation to their business or commerce activity but for some other purpose. Secondly, it is not in dispute that the Applicant have been continuing to render the same set of services before and after they got themselves voluntarily registered with the Department w.e.f. 10th May, 2008 under the category of "Support Services of Business or Commerce" and since then discharging their service tax liability on the said services without any protest or dispute. Hence, it sounds illogical to assume that for the period from 1-5-2006 to 9-5-2008 under similar circumstances the services would fall outside the scope of 'Support Services of Business or Commerce' when there has been no change in the definition prescribed at Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994. We find that all these associates/....