TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1078
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was registered with the service tax department. The appellant paid Global Account Manager (GAM) expenses to the holding company towards its share of expenses on the employees of the holding company or any of its-other-subsidiaries-who took care of particular global customers, having operations in other countries and whose logistics requirements are being managed by the appellant. The appellant had also paid certain amount towards sharing of expenses on leased circuits provided by foreign service providers between the headquarters of the holding company and other cities around the globe. Show cause notices dated 19.10.2010, 13.10.2011, 20.04.2011, 20.10.2011, 8.4.2008, 20.10.2008, 19.10.2009, 09.07.2008 and 19.10.2012 were issued to the appellant offices based in Delhi and Chennai wherein service tax was demanded on Global Account Manager (GAM) expenses, Royalty, lease lines, miscellaneous payments, short payment of tax on certain services and incorrect availment of tax paid during the period 2006-07 to 2011-12. As the appellant had opted for common registration, all the show cause notices was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority based in Delhi. Vide the orders dated 28.08.2012....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ds taxable services. He contended that the Commissioner should have sought for reconciliation of the tax payment. In respect of the wrong availment of cenvat credit, learned counsel stated that the invoices indicate the tax amount. Hence, there was no interest utilization of cenvat credit. 4. Learned Authorized Representative for the Department while reiterating the findings of the impugned orders, submitted that the Global Account Manager are the employees of the parent company and are rendering services to the clients of the appellant. Therefore, the said services are squarely covered under Business Auxiliary Services. The appellant was using the said leased lines to communicate with the parent company and other Group companies to render services to its clients. Thus, in this case, the holding company has not only provided the facility of telecommunication between the appellant and the other group companies, but also their services to facilitates the rendering of services to the clients. 4.1 Learned Authorized Representative further submitted that the services in question are 'Business Auxiliary Service' referred to in subclause (zzb) and 'Business Auxiliary Service' referr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as "business support service" with effect from 01.05.2011. Hence, demand under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service" is not sustainable. In this context, we note that this issues regarding expenses on Global Accounts Manager and lease line stands decided by this Tribunal's order dated 10.12.2024 wherein this Tribunal held as follows:- "7............................ As regards the demand, the Ld Counsel has submitted that the same is taxable as activities of operational or administrative assistance in any manner with effect from 01.05.2011 only. In this context, we note that in the instant case, it is on record that the Global Account Managers were providing customers logistics support, which in our view is taxable from 01.05.2006 itself. We note that the said show cause notices have raised the demand under the head 'Business Auxiliary Service', which cannot be sustained. It is settled law that the decision is to be confined to the allegations in the show cause notice. As the allegation in the show cause notice was to charge tax under a different head, hence the demand cannot be upheld. 8.................. We observe that the Ld Counsel has relied upon the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ical know-how, process technology, proprietary technical information and various connected services to the appellant in connection with setting up of their plant in Madhya Pradesh. The Original Authority mainly focused on the engineering services, which are a follow up ofthe transfer of technical know-how, to conclude that the appellants received engineering consultancy service only. We are not in agreement with such conclusion. The very fact that all these agreements talk about the foreign companies as "licensor" itself is revealing. In a typical agreement for consultancy service, there will be no licensor or licensee with transfer of licensed process technology or proprietary technical information. The essence of the agreement as could be seen from the narration above is for transfer of technology process. The Tribunal had occasioned to examine similar issues involving technical collaboration and transfer of intellectual property right from foreign companies to Indian recipient. It was held that when the agreement is for transfer of exclusive/nonexclusive technical knowhow the consideration received cannot be taxed under consultancy service. Reference can be made to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... HCN is to be received through pipeline, it is abundantly clear that in order to save the expenditure, both the parties agreed that there should be a common pipeline. Once HCN is received through the said common pipeline, it comes first to GSFC's premises and from there it is diverted in the ratio of 60:40, meaning thereby that GSFC receives 60% of the HCN whereas GACL receives 40% of the supply in accordance with their respective requirement. To enable GACL to receive this HCN through common pipeline, arrangement/agreement was entered into between these two parties. For this purpose, handling facilities were installed in the premises of GSFC. However, fact remains, for which there is no dispute, that for installation of these facilities both the parties had contributed towards the investment. Since the said handling facilities are in the premises of GSFC, incineration also takes place at the said premises. Handling facilities expenditure thereof is shared equally by both the parties. That is clearly provided in the agreement/arrangement that was agreed to between the parties and is reflected in the Minutes dated 06.07.1980. Once these facts are accepted, we find that handling ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stage. This issue is also remanded back for fresh decision. 12. As regards the invocation of the extended period, the learned Counsel has submitted that the revenue had conducted audit of the records of the appellant. In this context we note that it is settled law that mere detection by the audit team is no ground to allege suppression. In the instant case we note that the appellant was registered with the Service Tax department and was filing returns. It is also on record that audit was conducted by the department. We note that in the case of Incredible Unique Buildcon Ltd., vs. Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax [2022 (7) TMI 1182(CESTAT)] it was held that "16. If a tax is chargeable, in order to recover the service tax not paid or short paid a notice has to be issued under Section 73 of the Act. This is the only remedy available to the Revenue. The notice can be issued within the normal period of limitation only unless the elements of fraud or collusion or wilful statement or suppression of facts or contravention of any provisions of the Act or Rules with an intent to evade payment of service tax is established. If any of these elements are established in a....