2009 (2) TMI 699 - AT - Service Tax

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeal.
2. Taxability of services under Business Auxiliary Service.
3. Stay of penalties and payment of taxes.

Condonation of Delay:
The judgment addresses the issue of condonation of delay in filing an appeal by the appellant, Shadi Ram Jagan Nath. The delay of 11 days was attributed to non-receipt of the impugned order, and the counsel argued that it was not a wilful breach of law. The Revenue did not object to condoning the delay, as they were also in appeal in the same matter. The Tribunal allowed the application for condonation of delay, admitted the appeal, and dispensed with the pre-deposit requirement.

Taxability of Business Auxiliary Services:
The judgment delves into the argument presented by the appellant's counsel regarding the taxability of services under Business Auxiliary Service. The counsel contended that there was no contract agreement between the appellant and the employer, and the appellant's role was limited to transferring money on behalf of the employer. It was highlighted that there was no evidence of any appointment or engagement letter issued by the employer to the appellant. The counsel asserted that since the appellant was only involved in money transfer, there was no taxable service provided to bring them under the ambit of Business Auxiliary Service. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to dispense with the pre-deposit requirement due to the minimal amount of demand involved in the appeals.

Stay of Penalties and Payment of Taxes:
The judgment records the arguments put forth by the Departmental Representative (DR) advocating for the deposit of taxes while requesting a stay on penalties. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal acknowledged the recurring nature of the matter, considering the introduction of service tax laws bringing various services into the tax net for the first time. In line with this, the Tribunal decided to dispense with the pre-deposit requirement and directed the early listing of all appeals. It was further directed that there would be no recovery of the demands raised until the appeals were disposed of, emphasizing a fair and just approach in the adjudication process.