Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (1) TMI 592 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - scientific and technical consultancy services or not - appellant is a semi-autonomous organisation created to promote the productivity in industry, agriculture and other sectors of economy - Includability of expenses claimed by the appellant as reimbursable expenses in the gross value - time limitation - penalty - HELD THAT:- The scientific and technical consultancy means an advice, consultancy or scientific or technical assistance rendered in any manner either directly or indirectly by scientists or a technocrat or in his or technical institutions or organisation. The training programmes conducted by the appellant squarely fall in this category and there are no reason to deviate from the previous decision of this Tribunal in the appellant’s own case M/S NATIONAL PRODUCTIVITY COUNCIL VERSUS CCE, CHANDIGARH [2008 (8) TMI 26 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] where it was held that thrust of the Appellant’s activity is conducting scientific research related to productivity and undertaking technical study in this regard for their clients and tendering advice to them for optimizing their productivity, hence appellant is more appropriately covered under “Scientific or Technical Consultancy Service” than “Management Consultancy”. Includability of expenses claimed by the appellant as reimbursable expenses in the gross value - HELD THAT:- In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has already held that the board and lodging facilities provided for training would not form part of the gross value whereas expenses in other heads such as printing, stationery and miscellaneous expenses will be part of the gross amount. There are no good reason to deviate from this decision. Time Limitation - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the demand from the period July, 2001 to March 2004 was time barred as the extended period of limitation could not be invoked. The Commissioner (Appeals) has also accepted the appellant’s contention that amounts received by it for service should be treated as cum-tax receipts and the service tax should be calculated backwards. There is no appeal against this part of the order. Penalty - HELD THAT:- The penalty under section 78 which requires fraud or collision or wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts or violation of any provisions or Act or Rules with intent to evade the payment of service tax was also set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) - The penalty under section 76 is a simple penalty for failure to pay service tax where none of the aforesaid elements are present. This penalty has been upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) has also upheld the mandatory interest under section 75. Appeal dismissed.
|