TMI Blog2019 (5) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as rightly held by the lower authority, the services of the appellant to their client are beyond the scope of sub-section (i) - Coming to the sub-section (ii), service rendered by the appellant to their clients would be chargeable to tax only if it is rendered in relation to promotion or marketing of service rendered by the clients. IPO is only an offer to the prospective buyers and therefore, it cannot be held to be a service by the company offering IPO. Therefore, we find that in either condition, the appellants are not covered by the definition under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Review Order goes beyond the scope of show-cause notice and therefore, is not maintainable under law as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Section 65(19)(i) of the Finance Act, 1994. Adjudicating authority has dropped these two show-cause notices holding that the appellant is not covered by the definition as shares will become goods only if allotment was made. Commissioner of Service Tax reviewed the proceedings and issued a fresh show-cause notice and confirmed the same holding that the appellants are liable for tax in terms of Section 65(19)(ii) of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned Revision Order under Section 84 has gone beyond the scope of original show-cause notice. Learned Commissioner has created a separate ground which was not existing in the earlier show-cause notice, therefore, the order is bad i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ants Ltd. vs. CCE: 2008 (10) STR 166 (Tri.-Bang.) Link Intime India Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE: 2015 (38) STR 705 (Tri.-Mum.) 3.2 Learned counsel further submits that the services in relation to IPO is taxable under the category of Registrar to an issue as defined under Sections 65(105)(zzzi), 65(93), 65(59a) and 65(89c) of the Finance Act. It is well settled that when a particular activity or service is made taxable specifically under a particular category, then it cannot be said that the activity would be covered under general category of service. Lastly, the learned counsel submits that first show-cause notice was issued on 10.8.2006 covering the period July 2003 to March 2005. Similarly, second show-cause ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) 5.1 Coming to the sub-section (ii), service rendered by the appellant to their clients would be chargeable to tax only if it is rendered in relation to promotion or marketing of service rendered by the clients. IPO is only an offer to the prospective buyers and therefore, it cannot be held to be a service by the company offering IPO. Therefore, we find that in either condition, the appellants are not covered by the definition under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. 5.2 Moreover, as submitted by the learned counsel, the Review Order goes beyond the scope of show-cause notice and therefore, is not maintainable under law as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Delhi vs. Carrier Aircon Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riod prior to that date. As such, we find that the impugned order is not justifiable on tax liability on these two accounts. Since the tax liability under BAS itself is found to be not tenable, the inclusion of reimbursable expenditure for such tax does not arise. 5.4 In view of the above, we find that the appeals survive both on merits as well as on the fact that the Revisionary Authority has travelled beyond the grounds raised in the first show-cause notice. Since, we hold that demand itself is not sustainable and we are not going in to the issue of limitation. 6. In view of the above, both the appeals are allowed. (Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 15/05/2019) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
