Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.30 seconds)Super Poly Fabriks Ltd. vs Cce on 25 September, 2006
He relied upon the decision in the case of Super Poly
Fabriks Ltd. Vs. CCE, Punjab - 2008 (10) STR 454 (SC).
M/S Continental Foundation Joint ... vs Commissioner Of Central ... on 29 August, 2007
The
appellant has paid service tax under Information Technology Software
Services after 16.5.2008 when Information Technology Software
Services was introduced. This being the admitted fact, the department
cannot demand service tax on the transactions of very same nature
prior to 16.5.2008. Further, the appellant had provided all documents
and periodical accounting records as and when called for by the
department. He relied upon the case in Continental Foundations Jt.
Venture Vs. Commissioner - 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC) to argue that
there must be positive act on the part of the assessee to justify
invocation of extended period. The department having failed to
8
Service Tax Appeal No.178 of 2012
establish such act of suppression with intent to evade payment of
service tax, the extended period is not invocable in the present case.
Boving Fouress Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Central Excise on 27 July, 2004
To
support this argument, he relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Boving Fouress Ltd. Vs. CCE - 2006 (202)
ELT 389 (SC).
Continental Foundation Joint Venture ... vs Cce on 22 January, 2002
Service Tax Appeal No.178 of 2012
"11. Factual position goes to show the Revenue relied on
the circular dated 23.5.1997 and dated 19.12.1997. The
circular dated 6.1.1998 is the one on which appellant places
reliance. Undisputedly, CEGAT in Continental Foundation
Joint Venture case (supra) was held to be not correct in a
subsequent larger Bench judgment. It is therefore clear that
there was scope for entertaining doubt about the view to be
taken. The Tribunal apparently has not considered these
aspects correctly. Contrary to the factual position, the
CEGAT has held that no plea was taken about there being
no intention to evade payment of duty as the same was to
be reimbursed by the buyer. In fact, such a plea was clearly
taken. The factual scenario clearly goes to show that there
was scope for entertaining doubt and taking a particular
stand which rules out application of section 11A of the Act.
Finance Act, 1999
Commissioner Of Service Tax vs Arvind Mills Ltd....Opponent(S) on 20 March, 2014
10. It is also argued by the ld. Counsel that the appellant is not a
manpower supply agency. They are not engaged in supply of
manpower in any manner. The objects of Memorandum of Association
of the appellant would bring out that they are not engaged in
manpower supply agency. He relied upon the decision in the case of
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs. Arvind Mills - 2014 (35) STR 496
(Guj.) to argue that the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the said case
7
Service Tax Appeal No.178 of 2012
held that fundamentally tax liability under MRSA would be attracted
only when the provider was generally engaged in providing such
service. It is further argued by him that the essence or substance in
the contract is material for determination of the nature of the
transaction.
The Finance Act, 2018
Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... vs Ibm India Private Ltd. on 18 November, 2019
13. The ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi appeared for the department. She
supported the findings in the impugned order. She relied upon the
decision in Future Focus Infotech India Pvt. Ltd. (supra 2018) to argue
that the agreements entered by the appellant would make the
transaction as supply of manpower and therefore the demand under
MRSA is legal and proper. After the matter was reserved for orders on
15.1.2021, the ld. AR furnished additional written submissions. In the
said submission, it is noted that as per para 6.10 of the Show Cause
Notice, various clients fall under manpower supply service. Out of the
above clients, the agreement pertaining to ABN AMRO Bank, Citigroup
Information Technology Operations and Solutions (CITOS), Punjab
National Bank, Sak Consumer Retail Services Ltd. Bajaj Allianz, ING
Vysya Bank Ltd. are not available. Therefore, conclusion cannot be
arrived. However, in the case of Barclays Bank, Acsys Software India
Pvt. Ltd. and Societe General Global Solution Centre Pvt. Ltd. the
transactions perfectly fit into manpower supply. She has also referred
to pages with regard to the appeal paper book regarding these clients.
It is further stated by her in the cases of HDFC Bank, Scope
International intellectual property rest with the receiver, location also
at customer's place, finite men are supplied, however, fee is charged
as per annum basis, so without proper split up, conclusion cannot be
arrived. On the whole, without all the agreements, conclusion cannot
be arrived as to whether it is manpower supply or information
technology service and also ingredients of suppression cannot be
arrived. It is also requested by her that the appellant may be given
sufficient time to submit the rest of documents and issue may be
reheard again.
M/S Future Focus Infotech P. Ltd. Rep By ... vs Commr.Of Ser.Tax,Chennai on 24 February, 2020
18. In the case of an assessee, who is engaged in services in the
nature of development, maintenance and such software related
activities, it is sometimes necessary to send their staff / qualified
personnel to the location of the clients to carry out the services agreed
upon. When the staff / skilled personnel is send by the assessee to the
clients to carry out the software projects, in some cases, the control
and supervision of such staff is with the client. In such cases, when the
agreement is not for providing software projects but supply of qualified
staff only such staff would be under the guidance and supervision of
the client. The Tribunal in Future Focus Infotech India (P) Ltd. Vs.
Commissioner of Service Tax, Chennai vide Final Order No. 246 &
247/2010 dated 3.3.2010 as reported in 2010 (18) STR 308 (Tri.
Chennai), after analyzing the facts had held that when the staff /
qualified personnel have to function under the overall supervision /
control and management of the client, the services provided would be
manpower supply service. On the very same day, the Tribunal in the
case of Cognizant Tech Solutions (I) Pvt. Ltd. [Final Order No.
259/2010 dated 3.3.2010] had occasion to analyse a different set of
facts. In Cognizant Tech Solutions, they were themselves responsible
for the development, information technology software activities etc.
and the client did not have any role of supervision, control or
management over the staff / qualified personnel supplied. The
agreement was for fulfilling development, information technology
software activities to be done by Cognizant Tech Solutions. From the
facts in Cognizant Tech Solutions, the agreement was for carrying out
IT related services by Cognizant Tech Solutions though staff / qualified
personnel were to carry out such activities in the premises of the client.