Commissioner of Service Tax, Respondent Mumbai II Appearance: Shri A.R. Krishnan, Advocate for appellant Shri M.K. Sarangi, Jt. Commr (AR) for respondent Hon'ble Mr. S.K.Mohanty, Member (Judicial) Hon'ble Mr. Sanjiv Srivastava, Member (Technical) Date of Hearing: 10.05.2018 Date of Decision : 18.09.2018 FINAL ORDER NO. A/87362/2018 Per: Sanjiv Srivastava This appeal is directed against orderinoriginal No. 72 75/STII/RS/2013 dated 29.11.2013 passed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai. Vide the impugned order the adjudicating authority has confirmed the service tax demand of Rs.86,41,89,809/ along with interest thereon 2 Appeal No. ST/85707/14 and also imposed penalty under Sections 75, 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.1 The adjudication is in respect of three showcause notices earlier remanded back by this Tribunal vide its order No. A/29/13/CSTB/CI dated 14.01.2013. While deciding the matter in remand proceedings, the Commissioner has also adjudicated another showcause notice on the same issue for subsequent period. Chronologically four showcause notices under cover by the adjudication order are as follows: Table 1 Show Cause Notices adjudicated by the impugned order Show Cause Period Demand under Taxable Notice Date Service 19/10/2009 1.4.2004 to 31.3.2009 Maintenance & Repair 20/10/2010 1.4.2009 to 31.3.2010 Information Technology Software 21/10/2011 1.4.2010 to 31.3.2011 Information Technology Software 22/10/2012 1.4.2011 to 31.3.2012 Information Technology Software 2.2 While remanding the matter back the Tribunal has in its earlier order observed as follows: 3 Appeal No. ST/85707/14 "4. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We have also perused the impugned order. From the impugned order, it does not come out clearly how the Service Tax liability has been computed. If the appellant has purchased from third parties and sold the same on payment of VAT and also supplied hardware on payment of VAT, the same would not be liable to service tax. The liability to service tax would arise only in respect of software which the appellant has developed as per customer's specifications and supplied to their customers. Therefore, there is a need to go through the agreements entered into with the clients, bills raised for the services rendered and the goods supplied and the payments made towards service tax liability under the category of 'information technology service'. Only after going through all these documents, correct service tax determination can be done. Accordingly, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority to consider the matter afresh after taking into account all the documentary evidences which the appellant would submit in support of their claim that they have discharged the service tax liability correctly. The appellant is directed to co operate with the department and produce all the 4 Appeal No. ST/85707/14 documentary evidences by way of sales invoices, contracts/agreements entered into with the clients and other necessary documents, and payment of service tax made in respect of the services rendered by them etc....." 4. The demands confirmed against the appellant by the orderinoriginal can be classified in following categories: S Particular SCN 1 SCN 2 SCN 3 SCN 4 Total No 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Third party standardize d software 41108 88337 21663 77753 51933 products 729 7 13 68 787 [VAT charged] 2 Inhouse developed 55949 13426 23068 88751 93333 standardize 970 970 874 2 326 d software 3 Software 41039 41039 developmen 0 0 0 2471 2471 t services