TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (2) TMI 106
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o be advisory services, which according to them, was not liable to service tax. Revenue being of the opinion that receipts on this head are, for the period between October 1998 and March 2002, to be taxed for rendering 'management consultancy service' leviable under section 65(105)(r) of Finance Act, 1994. By the impugned order no.35/2005 (M-ST) dated 17th August 2005, Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai upheld the demand of Rs. 8,60,507/- confirmed by the lower authority along with interest. At the same time, the first appellate authority did hold '.....that there exists reasonable cause for the failure of the appellants to discharge their duty liability and in consequence, I set aside the penalties impos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rity had set aside the penalties under section 76 and 77 after rendering the finding that '13. As regards the arguments put forth by the appellants against imposition of penalty, I find that there is no contumacious disregard for any provision of law in this case. It must be kept in mind that service tax is a new area of indirect taxation and that the laws and procedures relating to its implementation are still being added to, refined and modified over the years. In the initial stages after introduction of a new levy, there is always found to be some areas of confusion, both for the assesses as well as for the field officers implementing it. In the instant case, it is seen that the appellants had duly registered themselves in r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2015 (38) STR 1038 (Tri-Del)] that 'management consultancy' is a work rendered by a management consultant and the appellants had clearly projected themselves as management consultants to the very same clients. The decision of the Tribunal in Jubliant Enpro (P) Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida [2015 (38) STR 625 (Tri-Del)] with specific reference to: '6. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. A careful perusal of the appellants services to M/s. Transocean and M/s. Tide Water detailed in para 2 above makes it clear that the appellants were advising the clients about various aspects relating to Management. The services are not executionery in nature and are clearly advisory in nature. The defin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Water & M/s. Transocean) and thus clearly fell within the ambit of role of 'management consultant' as defined earlier. Thus the impugned service clearly qualifies for the status of Management Consultancy Services; some of its minor fringes being subsumed thereunder by virtue of Section 65A(2)(5) of Finance Act, 1994. The appellants' attempt to elucidate the meaning of Management Consultancy by reference to meaning of the word 'Management' is not really germane because the expression "Management Consultant" and "Management Consultancy Service" are clearly defined in the Finance Act, 1994 itself and therefore one doesn't have to, indeed one cannot, look beyond the statutory definition for the purpose of classification in this case. It is we....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....operation and functioning of all aspects of an enterprise. Naturally, enterprises, by and large being profit oriented, would gauge the outcome of such activities as impacting profit/income. It is difficult to accept the illusory definition proposed on behalf of the appellant; the same goes for the definition in circular of Central Board of Excise & Customs purporting to have been supplied by the Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad. At the same time we are unable to accept the explanation provided on behalf of Revenue by Learned Authorized Representative. What we can confidently assert is that neither the original authority nor the first appellate authority have examined the nature of services actually provided to the client. In the no....