M/S Agilent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd vs Cce (Adjn.), New Delhi

[Arising out of the Order-in-Original No. 17/PKJ/CCE/ADJ/2009 dated 30/03/2009 passed by The Commissioner of Central Excise (Adj.), New Delhi.]

For Approval and signature :

Honble Shri Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see :

the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of :

the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for

publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair :

copy of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :

Department Authorities?

M/s Agilent Technologies India Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

Versus

CCE (Adjn.), New Delhi Respondent

Appearance

Shri Rachit Jain, Advocate  for the appellant.

Shri Amresh Jain, Authorized Representative (DR)  for the Respondent.

CORAM : Honble Shri Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 53208/2015 Dated : 13/10/2015

Per. Justice G. Raghuram :-

Heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned AR for the respondent/Revenue.

2. 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.

3. 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 Honble Bombay High Courts decision in CST, Mumbai  II vs. SGS India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2014 (34) S.T.R. 554 (Bom.)

4. 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)

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(B. Ravichandran)

Member (Technical)

PK

??

??

??

??

3