Price Water House Coopers Pvt Ltd Vs Commissioner of Central Excise (CESTAT Chandigarh)
The appeal was filed by Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd. against an order of the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Faridabad, confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 4,51,56,323, along with interest and penalties. The dispute arose from services provided by the appellant to Price Water House Coopers entities in the USA, UK and Australia during the period 31 August 2006 to 31 March 2011 under agreements for management consultancy services.
Following departmental audit and correspondence, a show cause notice dated 20 April 2012 alleged that the appellant had rendered services in the nature of Market Research Agency Services and Chartered Accountant Services while claiming exemption under the Export of Service Rules, 2005. It was also alleged that the appellant had failed to discharge service tax on services provided to an Indian company through its foreign subsidiaries. The Commissioner confirmed the demand, denied export of service benefits and imposed interest and penalties, leading to the present appeal.
The appellant contended that it was engaged in providing consultancy and advisory services relating to accounting, finance management, mergers and acquisitions, due diligence, financial viability assessments and diagnostic reviews, all of which were classifiable as Management or Business Consultant Services. It argued that these services did not fall within the scope of Chartered Accountant Services because it was an incorporated company and not a practising chartered accountant or chartered accountant firm under the Chartered Accountants Act, 1949. The appellant also submitted that market analysis formed only a part of the consultancy assignments and was not an independent market research service. It further argued that its services qualified as exports under the Export of Service Rules, 2005 because the recipient was located outside India, consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange and the reports prepared by the appellant were delivered to overseas entities for use in rendering services to their clients. The appellant also challenged the computation of demand, denial of cum-tax benefit, invocation of the extended period of limitation and the delay of over seven years in adjudicating the show cause notice.
