ORDER : 1. The issue involved in this appeal is whether the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'CESTAT') was right in upholding the order passed by the Commissioner Appeals and finding that the appellant was liable to pay service tax under the Finance Act, 1994 in regard to the amount it received under what has described as 'non-compete fee'. This amount was received under the non-compete agreement which was entered into on 5th March, 2009. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant and we also heard learned Additional Solicitor General. It is apparently sought to be taxed under Section 65 (104c) of the Finance Act, 1994 which defines support services of Business or Commerce. 3. With effect from 01.07.2012, there is no dispute that the said amount would be exigible to tax under Section 66E (5) but as on date of the agreement under which the amount was received all that existed on the statute book in a manner of speaking was Section 65 (104c) of the Finance Act, 1994 defines 'support service of Business or Commerce' as follows: "Section 65 (104c)- Support Services of Business or Commerce" means services provided in relation to business or commerce and includes evaluation of prospective customers, telemarketing, processing of purchase orders and fulfilment services, information and tracking of delivery schedules, managing distribution and logistics, customer relationship management services, accounting and processing of transactions, operational assistance for marketing, formulation of customer service and pricing policies, infrastructural support services and other transaction processing. 4. The amount which was made under the agreement was a one time payment. In other words, the amount did not spill over after 01.07.2012. In such circumstances, the order of the Commissioner appeal as upheld by the CESTAT appear to be untenable in law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order will stand set aside. 5. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.