Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: parle exports in M/S. Pricewaterhousecoopers Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Service Tax, Chennai on 22 January, 2018Matching Fragments
7. In this connection, we refer to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Ernst & Young Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, New Delhi 2012 (27) STR 461 (Tri. Del.). The Tribunal examining a similar dispute observed as follows:-
14.?We have considered arguments on both the sides. We find that the decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Futura Polyesters Ltd. (supra) quoted above is clearly to the effect that most of the impugned activities could not fall under the definition of Management Consultancy Service. We are of the view that though compliance with laws is part of the responsibilities of management such responsibility per se cannot bring it into the ambit of the words in connection with the management of any organisation used in Section 65(105)(r) and Section 65(65) of Finance Act, 1994 to tax such services. In this matter we see merit in the clarification given by CBEC in para 9 of its circular dated 27-6-2001. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Parle Exports (P) Ltd. (supra) gives the rule that a taxing entry should be understood in the same way in which these are understood in the ordinary parlance. According to CBEC the ordinary meaning of management will not cover Compliance Services. According to the adjudicating authority ordinary meaning of management covers Compliance Services. We concur with the view of CBEC and reject the view of the adjudicating authority, since in our view every responsibility of management cannot be considered as management function. For example the management may have a responsibility to set up a canteen in a factory employing large number of workers. A person who gives advice on initial setting up of that canteen cannot be considered to be giving Management Consultancy Service. Out of the various impugned services, the services in the matters before FIPB there could be a doubt as to whether the service was in connection with management function or in connection with compliance of regulations. Since there is no such examination in the impugned order and since we find the demand to be time barred we are not dealing with this issue in detail.