2013 (5) TMI 937

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on cesses for the period from April 2004 - March 2009 less an amount of Rs. 67,15,010/- already paid by the assessee and appropriated in the impugned order. The break-up of the balance amount of Rs. 2,46,49,943/- is as follows: Demand Category Period Rs. 24,11,025/- Management Consultancy (excluding development cost) 2005-06 to 2008-09 Rs. 17,15,138/- Management Consultancy (development cost) January 2005 to March 2006 Rs. 1,69,91,194/- Manpower Recruitment or Supply Agency 2005-06 to 2008-09 Rs. 28,68,873/- Airport service 2005-06 to 2008-09 Rs. 6,63,713/- CENVAT credit 2006-07 to 2008-09 2. We have perused the records. The appellant is a company incorporated under the Companies....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....mployees was that of master-servant and hence the salaries and perks paid to the employees were not exigible to service tax. The learned counsel has further pointed out that a part (Rs. 15,29,906/-) of the above demand under 'manpower recruitment or supply agency service' is for the period prior to enactment of Section 66A and the same is unenforceable. In respect of the balance demand of Rs. 1,54,61,288/-, the learned counsel has claimed strong prima facie case on merits in the aforesaid manner. 3.1 We have heard the learned Additional Commissioner (AR) also who has reiterated the relevant findings of the adjudicating authority. 3.2 After examining the provisions of the relevant agreements viz., Expatriate Remuneration Reim....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s demand is on the total amount of tender fees and pre-award costs collected by the appellant from unsuccessful bidders who had filed prequalification tenders for various developmental works for the airport. As per the tender conditions, the tender fees and pre-award costs were not refundable. These amounts were retained by the appellant. The impugned demand is on the total amount so retained. The learned counsel has further argued that the above fees and costs were brought to levy of service tax under the head 'airport service'. According to him, such fees and costs were not collected as consideration for any such service and hence the demand is unsustainable. We have heard the Additional Commissioner (AR) and have considered his submissio....