TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 1083
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... providing services as a Management Consultant. It provides a comprehensive range of services such as data collection and analysis, manpower mobilization, liaison, training supervision, management consulting, software development etc. Apart from above, services are provided by the Appellant under a consortium arrangement in the capacity of sub-contractor. The Appellant had admittedly obtained Service tax registration on August 17, 2001 and has been duly discharging its Service tax liability, as applicable. 2.1 The impugned proceedings were initiated alleging wilful misstatement and suppression of facts etc. with intent to evade payment of tax by invoking extended period of limitation in terms of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 ('the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....esent appeal has been filed. 3. The ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that for the earlier period in their own case reported in (2023) 9 Centax 413 (Tri.-Cal), this Tribunal has set aside the demand raised against the appellant. She further submitted that both the show-cause notices have been issued to the appellants by invoking extended period of limitation, the same are not sustainable in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nizam Sugar Vs. Collector of Central Excise, A.P. reported in 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC). Therefore, the impugned orders are to be set aside. 4. The ld.A.R. for the Revenue, reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5. We find that this issue for the earlier period has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in either of the activities undertaken by the Appellant during the period of dispute. The impugned order also has not given any finding as to how the Appellant are liable to pay service tax for the above said services under the category 'Management Consultancy'. Accordingly, we hold that the demand on this account confirmed in the impugned order is liable to be set aside. (ii) Reimbursable expenses - Rs. 3,17,242 13. In their submissions, the Appellant stated that the expenditures incurred during execution of job and reimbursed by the customers, is not to be treated as fees and made liable to levy of Service tax. The reimbursements received by them from its customers is outside the ambit of service tax and is therefore ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ractors needs to be examined. This issue whether sub-contractor needs to pay service tax has arisen because of certain clarifications issued by the Board in the early stage of evolution of service tax levy and connected laws. These instructions were issued in view of different factors like, (i) Even prior to the introduction of Cenvat Scheme for service tax, the policy of the government was to tax the same service only once, that is in the hands of the main person providing the service. There was no intention to tax the same value twice in the hands of two different parties rendering different part of the same service. This situation is most aptly demonstrated by the service rendered by a stock broker and that rendered by a sub-bro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the entries in Section 65(105) of the Finance Act, 1994 as it stands today. Earlier the nature of the person providing service as well as the nature of the person availing service was specified in many of the taxable entries. For example if service provided to a customer by a telegraphic authority was taxed, the service provided by one telegraphic authority to another telegraphic authority for the former to render service to the customer was not under the tax net. Such issues came up also in the case of service provided to a client by a consulting engineer. The sub-contractor who was carrying out part of the activity may not have fitted into the definition of "consulting engineer" and the consulting engineer sub-contracting the work might....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 321. The Commissioner (Appeal) has erred in not considering the claim of the Appellant for exemption under Notification No. 12/2003- S.T., when evidence regarding value of goods sold was apparently produced by the Appellant. 17. The finding of the adjudicating authority has not explained the reasons for finding in para 4.7 without contradicting the claims of the Appellant as recorded in 3.9 of the order. If the entire matter could be decided just by resolving this faulty finding we would have gone ahead to do so. Since the matter requires examination of other facts and laws we refrain from giving any finding on this issue at this stage. 15. We observe that the service rendered by the Appellant to the main contractor was n....