GLAXO SMITHKLINE Vs. C.C.E.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We find some typographical errors as a result of which the Order No. A -668/WZB/2004 -CII, dated 20 -8 -2004 and Corrigendum No. M -514/WZB/05 -CII, dated 9 -12 -2004 of this Tribunal does not make very clear reading and its meaning somewhat unclear. Therefore, we have considered it appropriate to correct the text of the order, now as reproduced below.

(2.) Pursuant to verification of Notes of accounts [Section 18(12)(b)] of the Balance Sheet for 1998 and 1999 it was found, by the officers, that the appellant has recovered certain amounts towards 'Staff Costs' and other expenses and shared services from BWIL. This was considered to, after due enquiries, "Management Consulting Services" provided by the appellants to BWIL as per definition in Section 65(37) of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 (as amended) for Management Consultant, and definition of Taxable Service in Section 65(72) of Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 and interpretation of the term 'Service Provider', The appellants were charged and held liable to a Service Tax of Rs. 1,12,97,893/ - on amount of Rs. 22,59,57,866/ - so recovered from BWIL during the period 16 -10 -98 to 31 -12 -2000 as follows - Rs. 1,92,84,849/ - as Management cost (staff cost) for the period 16 -10 -98 to 31 -12 -98 Rs. 1,92,90,017/ - as Management cost (other expenses) for the period 16 -10 -98 to 31 -12 -98 Rs. 8,88,10,000/ - as Management cost (staff cost) for the period 1 -1 -2000 to 31 -12 -2000 Rs. 9,85,73,000/ - as Management cost (other expenses) for the period 1 -1 -2000 to 31 -12 -2000. Besides the Service Tax held recoverable, as worked out to Rs. 1,12,97,893/ - at 5% on the total of above recoveries, the appellants were held liable to a penalty of Rs. 500/ - under Section 75A of the said Act for failure to get themselves registered under Service Tax as per Section 69. A penalty of Rs. 100/ -per day for delay in payment of the said tax as per Section 76, a penalty of Rs. 1,000/ - under Section 77 for non -filling of ST -3 return along with interest @ 24% to be paid for delay as per Section 75 of that Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the order of the lower authority. Hence this appeal.

(3.) After hearing both sides and considering the material submissions it is found -