2015 (5) TMI 741

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... terms of which the service tax demand of Rs. 6 ,54,64,554 /- has been confirmed for the period October, 2007 to March, 2011 (along with interest and penalties) under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) under reverse charge mechanism. The facts of the case are that the appellants were purchasing services from M/s. ConvasM America Inc., USA (CAI). As per the contract, (service provider agreement) entered into between the appellants and CAI, it is stated that :- (i) The appellants are in the business of Value Added Services, in India and abroad. (ii) Appellants are in the business of, inter alia, acting as a marketing service provider and rendering services for the development of computer software and other related services in ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....by them from CAI were not BAS but were "Technical Testing and Analysis" service and therefore the demand was not sustainable. He further argued that it was not a case of provision of services on behalf of the client and the service was rendered to the customers directly. He referred to the judgement of CESTAT in the case of NBCC Vs. CCE&ST, Patna [2011 (23) STR 593 (Tri .- Kol.)] to contend that the services received from abroad were classifiable under "Technical Testing and Analysis" service. It was also contended that this case was Revenue neutral and therefore the extended period could not be invoked. The ld. Departmental Representative on the other hand argued that the services received are clearly covered under the definition of Busine....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....NBCC is only academic as the Commissioner has clearly held that NBCC is rendering services of site formation to M/s. NTPC and the Department is not in Appeal against the said findings." From the above para it is evident that the said judgement does not lay down any ratio. It is well settled that what is of precedential value is not the judgement but the ratio of judgement. As regards the contention of the appellants that they Were receiving "Technical Testing and Analysis" service, it is seen that the said service is defined under Section 65 (105) (zzh) as "to any person by a technical testing and analysis agency, in relation to technical testing and analysis". It can be hardly anybody's case that the appellants were receiving services....