Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2007 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2007 (1) TMI 495 - AT - Service TaxRefund of service tax paid - tax paid under the head Management Consultancy Service - non-banking financing company - Joint Venture agreement - HELD THAT:- We find substance in the view taken by the lower appellate authority that the work done by the respondents was in the nature of “in-house services” rendered by them as partner of the JV company. We have enumerated the services rendered by the respondents. None of that has been shown to be a service rendered directly or indirectly in connection with the management of FISAF. Again, none of these services has been shown to involve advice, consultancy, or technical assistance relating to conceptualization, devising, development, modification, rectification or upgradation of any working system of the JV company. There is substance in the submission of ld. consultant that some of the services in question are covered by the definition of “Business Auxiliary Services”, which came to be introduced for levy of service tax w.e.f. 1-7-2003. The services in question were rendered in Oct 1999. The definition of “Management Consultancy” has continued to be same even after introduction of “Business Auxiliary Services” for levy of service tax. It would, therefore, mean that a service appropriately classifiable as “Business Auxiliary Service” cannot fall within the ambit of “Management Consultancy”. On this point, the respondents can legitimately claim support from the Tribunal’s decision in Glaxo Smithkline Pharmaceuticals [2005 (7) TMI 25 - CESTAT, MUMBAI]. The appellant has not succeeded in rebutting any of the points made in the impugned order. In the result, the appeal gets dismissed.
|