AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned AR for the respondent/Revenue.
Assessee is the appellant. Appeal is preferred against the order dated 30/03/2009 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, New Delhi
confirming service tax demand of Rs.8,13,15,324/- comprising Rs.6,97,58,354/- under Business Auxiliary Service for the period 01/07/2003 to
19/11/2003 and 19/04/2006 to 31/03/2007; and Rs.1,15,56,970/- for having provided Management, Maintenance or repair service for the period
01/07/2003 to 19/11/2003 and 01/03/2005 to 31/03/2007. The order appropriated specified amounts remitted towards tax and interest; imposed
specified penalties under Sections 77 and 78; penalty under Section 76 was dropped.
Learned Counsel submits and learned DR does not contest the position in law that the tax demand attributed to consideration received on Business
Auxiliary Service (BAS) by the appellant amounts to export of service and tax confirmed thereon is not leviable, in view of the decision of Larger
Bench of the Tribunal in Paul Merchants Limited vs. CCE, Chandigarh reported in 2013 (29) S.T.R. 257 (Tri. - Del.); in Microsoft Corporation (I) (P)
Limited vs. CST, New Delhi reported in 2014 (36) S.T.R. 766 (Tri. - Del.); and several other decisions concurring with the view expressed in the
Larger Bench decision in Paul Merchants Limited vs. CCE, Chandigarh (supra). Demand of tax attributed to rendition of Management, Maintenance
or Repair Service is also not sustainable in view of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court's decision inC ST, Mumbai - II vs. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. reported in
2014 (34) S.T.R. 554 (Born.)
In the light of the settled legal position, the appellant is entitled to succeed. The impugned order dated 30/03/2009 is therefore quashed. No costs.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court)