2009 (8) TMI 737 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit Business Auxiliary Service - commission agent exemption under the category of Business Auxiliary Service - After the amendment discharging its tax liability under the category of business auxiliary service - Revenue s contention is that the appellant carried out various activities and all such activities are not commission agency services Held that - each activity falling under different categories - No condition being imposed under this notification and in absence of bifurcation of the activities - pre-deposit waived - disposal of the appeal accordingly

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 13/03 for exemption under Business Auxiliary Service pre and post amendment.

Analysis:
The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 13/03 as a commission agent, which was later amended post 10-9-04. The appellant argued that prior to the amendment, they should not be denied the benefit of the notification. The appellant relied on the agreement copy and the scope of activity described therein to support their claim of providing commission agency service. The appellant contended that for the periods 2003-04 to 2004-05, except after Sept. 04, they should not be liable to service tax. The appellant highlighted the absence of any condition in the notification to deny the benefit for the said period.

The revenue contended that the appellant did not solely provide commission agency services but carried out various activities beyond that scope. Therefore, the revenue argued that the appellant should not be entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 13/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003.

Upon hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal observed that the Commissioner did not provide a clear finding about each activity falling under different categories. The Tribunal noted that there was no bifurcation of activities, and the denial of exemption seemed to be based on a general view rather than specific conditions. In the absence of a clear determination and bifurcation of activities, the Tribunal waived the requirement of pre-deposit during the pendency of the appeal. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a detailed analysis of each activity to ascertain the eligibility for exemption under the notification.

This judgment highlights the importance of a thorough examination of activities to determine eligibility for tax exemptions under specific notifications. It underscores the significance of clear findings and specific conditions for denying or granting exemptions, emphasizing the need for a detailed analysis rather than a general view.