Commissioner of C. Ex. Vs. Aisco Engg. Pvt. Ltd. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
2. after hearing both sides, i find that the respondents as per letter dated 20-9-99 have informed the department that their activity involves training to their clients for use of paper writing, tally package. they also informed that they help customers organisations in implementing a copyrighted package for maintaining their accounts and help them by solving queries of customer's employees in connection with the implementation of a software and that software package, up-gradation etc. procured by customers.3. thus it is clear that the respondents do not have any consultancy services and as such they do not fall within the definition of "management consultancy" as given in section 65(21) of the finance act, 1994. the commissioner of appeal in his order has categorically recorded that the law credential in which the appellant stands as "management" is basically an organisation that manages business, manager manages workers, management in the art of getting things done through people. it is also noted that the appellants are merely engaged in the service of advising the clients in a field of programming which is not related to basic business activity of their clients. moreover, it is further noted that the respondents thus do not have any trained management in their force.4. in view of the above, i do not find any reason to interfere with the order of commissioner (appeals). i, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue.

Judgment:
2. After hearing both sides, I find that the respondents as per letter dated 20-9-99 have informed the Department that their activity involves training to their clients for use of paper writing, tally package. They also informed that they help customers Organisations in implementing a copyrighted package for maintaining their accounts and help them by solving queries of customer's employees in connection with the implementation of a software and that software package, up-gradation etc. procured by customers.

3. Thus it is clear that the respondents do not have any consultancy services and as such they do not fall within the definition of "Management Consultancy" as given in Section 65(21) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner of Appeal in his order has categorically recorded that the law credential in which the appellant stands as "Management" is basically an Organisation that manages business, manager manages workers, management in the art of getting things done through people. It is also noted that the appellants are merely engaged in the service of advising the clients in a field of programming which is not related to basic business activity of their clients. Moreover, it is further noted that the respondents thus do not have any trained management in their force.

4. In view of the above, I do not find any reason to interfere with the order of Commissioner (Appeals). I, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the Revenue.