News Flash
  • Important information for the field click here
  • Notifications for notifying e-way Bill website and amended CGST Rules have been uploaded. Notifications for reduction in Late fees for various returns also uploaded.
  • Immediate Attention: Registration and Requisition letter issued for Next Dept. Exam. of Inspectors to be held from 13.03.2018 to 16.03.2018. Please download the same from
  • Departmental Examination for promotion of Ministerial Officers to rescheduled to be held from 20.02.2018 to 22.02.2018
  • Weekly newsletter from Chairman, CBEC dated 19/01/2018 click here
  • WCO Certificate of Merit Award, 2018 : List of Awardees click here
  • Decisions relating to Services in the 25th meeting of GST Council held at New Delhi on 18.01.2018click here
  • Letter to all CCs/DGs informing DGHRD Swachhta Whatapp Numberclick here
  • Reports on user Experienceclick here
  • Removing "Retired, but PPO not issued" figures reflecting on "Bhavishya" portal screenclick here
  • Chairman CBEC's weekly newsletter dated 13.01.2018click here
  • Cadre Restructuring and re-organisation of field formations under CBEC - Allocation of revised cadre here
  • Training of Officers on E-Way Bill System click here
  • Clarification regarding promotion of TA to the post of Executive Assistant (Erstwhile DOS/STA) and Executive Assistant to here
  • Clarification regarding promotion of Stenographer Grade-II in PB-I with GP-2400 (Erstwhile stenographer grade-III) to the post of Stenographer grade-I in PB-II with GP-4200 (Erstwhile Stenographer grade-II/Stenographer grade-I) and Stenographer grade-I in PB-II with GP-4200 (Erstwhile Stenographer grade-II/Stenographer grade-I) to the post of Inspector in PB-II with here
  • Clarification on Letter F.No.A-32011/03/2015-Ad.III.A dated 23.02.2017 addressed to CC Chennai purportedly issued under the signature of the then US-Ad.III.A conducting DPC for promotion to the grade of here
  • Swachhta Pakhwada to be observed from 16.01.2018 to 31.01.2018click here
  • Updated version of GST Concept and Status and PPT on GST have been uploaded.
  • One day Training Of Officers from CBEC on E-way Bill System on 12 th January 2018 at NACIN ZTI Bangalore and 18 th January 2018 at NACIN Faridabad click here
  • A compilation of 51 GST Flyers has been uploaded on the CBEC website. For details please click here
  • Details of Vendors providing E-seals to exportersclick here
  • Meeting notice - meeting to be held on 17.01.2018 under Chairmanship of Member(Admin), CBEC in DGHRD with officials of recognised Associations/Federation under CBEC click here
  • Delhi Customs holding AEO Camp on 15th and 30th January at New Custom House, ICD Tughlakabad and ICD Patparganj to help filling/facilitating applications for AEO. click here
  • Letter issued to all Cadre Controlling Authorities/Directors General under CBEC regarding irregularities in promotions in respect of Group 'B' & 'C' Non-Gazetted Cadres in here
  • Clarifications on promotion of stenographer Grade-I to the post of Inspectorsclick here
  • Clarifications on promotion for Gp B & C postclick here
  • CGST Rules, 2017 as amended upto 30/12/ here
  • One day Training on “Right to Information Act, 2005” for officers of the rank of Assistant/Deputy/Joint/Additional Commissioners/Commissioners & above of CBEC on 05th Feb, here
  • Appointment of nodal officer for acting as a single point contact with DGGST, New here
  • Circulars clarifying procedures under GST and Order extending filing of FORM GST CMP-03 are issued.
  • Notifications issued for extending the time limit for furnishing certain FORMS and amending the CGST Rules
  • Observation of Swachhta Pakhwada from 16.01.2018 to 31.01.2018click here
  • "Congratulations to DG Systems for receiving the Digital India Excellence Award-2017, under the category Citizen Services for the Express Cargo Clearance System, during PAN-IIM World Management Conference 2017."
  • Feedback requested on user-experience of GST applicationclick here
  • Compendium for AIOs, Printer and Saving files from Citrix Applicationclick here
  • Features available in GST application- Advisory dated 07.12.2017click here
  • Draft transfer & placement guidelines for irs(c&ce) officersclick here
  • Nationwide Campaign under "Swachhta Hi Sewa"click here
  • CGST rates for Goods under different Notifications as amended from time to timeclick here
  • Letters regarding delivery and upgradation of IT infrastructure
  • Letter regarding requirement of IT infrastructure at Customs formationsclick here
View all







Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri (Chairman)

Mr. Somnath Pal (Member)

Dr. Brahm Avtar Agrawal (Member)


Order No. AAR/02(ST)/2006


Application No. AAR/03/ST/2006



Applicant Pfizer Limited,
Pfizer Centre, Patel Estate,
S.V. Road, Jogeshwari (W),
Mumbai- 400102.
Commissioner concerned Commissioner of Service Tax,Mumbai.
Present: for the Applicant None
 for the Commissioner  Shri A.K. Roy,
Joint CDR,
CESTAT, New Delhi.
Dates of Hearing 27.07.06 & 10.08.06




(Per Dr. Brahm Avtar Agrawal)


The crucial question for consideration in the instant case is as to whether the application made by Pfizer Limited for obtaining an advance ruling under sub-section (1) of section 96C of the Finance Act, 1994 ("Act") deserves admission or rejection. 


2.       The applicant, a joint venture Indian company, has stated the question, on which advance ruling is sought, as below: 


"Which clause in Section 65 to the Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994 will be applicable to the supply of technical know-how, for the purposes of classification, since the same is not classifiable under clause (55a) for Intellectual Property Services?"


3.       The applicant has entered into agreements with its foreign collaborators for the supply of the technical know-how and assistance for use in the manufacture of certain pharmaceutical products the Indian company is engaged in. 


4.       The comments on the application were furnished by the Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai. 


5.       Before the question as to classification of service specified in the application could be adopted for examination leading to pronouncement of advance ruling thereon, it was felt necessary to call upon the applicant, and a notice was issued to it, to show cause as to how the application was maintainable, vide our Order dated 11.07.2006.  This Order was passed as on examination of the application and the comments of the Commissioner it prima facie appeared to us that:  


(i)      first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 96D of the Act was attracted; and


(ii)      clause (a) of section 96A of the Act was attracted as admittedly the activity was an on-going service. 


6.       Although two opportunities of personal hearing were extended to the applicant, it chose not to avail of any of them. However, the applicant in its letter dated 06.08.2006 replied to the two grounds as under:


"(i)    The case as mentioned in the letter dated March 27, 2006 of the Commissioner of Service Tax is for an earlier agreement and earlier period.  No case is pending for the agreement forming part of the advance ruling application.  Hence  it  is  submitted that there is no case pending before any Court/Tribunal pertaining to the present agreement.


  (ii)   The activity of supply of technical know how is an on-going activity."


7.       The first ground relates to the jurisdictional limitation of the Authority flowing from the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 96D of the Act, which reads as follows:


"The Authority may, after examining the application and the records called for, by order, either allow or reject the application:


          Provided that the Authority shall not allow the application where the question raised in the application is,-


(a)     already pending in the applicant's case before any Central Excise Officer, the Appellate Tribunal or any Court;


(b)     the same as in a matter already decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court:


          Provided further that no application shall be rejected under this sub-section unless an opportunity has been given to the applicant of being heard:


          Provided also that where the application is rejected, reasons for such rejection shall be given in the order." 



8.       A perusal of the provisions, extracted above, would show that under the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 96D of the Act, the Authority cannot allow the application or, in other words, cannot entertain the application for pronouncing advance ruling on the question specified in the application under sub-section (4) thereof, if the question raised in the application is either already pending in the applicant's case before any Central Excise Officer or the Appellate Tribunal or any Court, or the question is the same as in a matter already decided by the Appellate Tribunal or any Court.  The Commissioner concerned  in  his letter dated 23.03.2006 has taken the stand that the question raised in the application is already pending in the applicant's case before the Bombay High Court as well as has already been decided by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), West Regional Bench At Mumbai, vide its Order No.A/332/WZB/2005-C-II dated 20.05.2005.  The said Order of the CESTAT is under appeal before the Bombay High Court. 


9.       A perusal of the papers in this connection, shows that the precise question before the Departmental Officers and the CESTAT was as to whether the Indian company received "consulting engineer's service" from outside India, that is, the service to a client in relation to advice, consultancy or technical assistance in any manner in one or more disciplines of engineering, which is a "taxable service".  It was held by the CESTAT that neither the foreign company nor the Indian company was a "consulting engineer".  Classification of the service in question as "intellectual property service" was neither in issue, nor considered by any of the authorities. The word "same" lexically means "identical", "not different" or "very similar", vide the Concise Oxford Dictionary and the Chambers 21st Century Dictionary.  The Black's Law Dictionary defines the word "same" as "the very thing just mentioned or described". In our view, the question raised in the application under consideration cannot be termed as the same as in a matter already decided; the question of the same being already pending in a Court does not arise.  Therefore, the first proviso to sub-section (2) of section 96D of the Act is not attracted, and the application cannot be disallowed on the basis of the first ground.


10.     The second ground concerns the definition of the expression "advance ruling" as given in clause (a) of section 96A of the Act, which reads thus:

          ' "advance ruling" means the determination, by the Authority, of a question of law or fact specified in the application regarding the liability to pay service tax in relation to a service proposed to be provided, by the applicant.'


 11.     A plain reading of the above definition makes it clear that "advance ruling" means the determination, by the Authority, of a question of law or fact specified in the application regarding the liability to pay service tax in relation to a service proposed to be provided by the applicant.  As the activity in question is admittedly an on-going service, no question seeking advance ruling thereon can be entertained by the Authority. For this reason, the application deserves rejection. 


12.     Accordingly, the application is rejected.                           




(Somnath Pal)        (Justice S.S.M. Quadri)            (Dr. B.A. Agrawal)

    Member                      Chairman                                Member



Pronounced in the open court on the 29th day of August, 2006.