2007 (2) TMI 113 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Service - Department contended that appellant is liable to pay service tax under Business Auxiliary Service and accordingly demand were made alongwith penalty - Matter allowed by way remand and order for pre-deposit

Summary

Issues:
1. Waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery of service tax and penalty.
2. Classification of services as "Business Auxiliary Services" for service tax.
3. Compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excise Act.
4. Violation of natural justice in dismissing the appeal without notice.

Issue 1: Waiver of Pre-deposit and Stay of Recovery:
The appellants sought waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery concerning a service tax amount and penalty imposed on them. The appellate authority directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs, which the appellants failed to comply with, leading to the dismissal of their appeal. The tribunal dispensed with the pre-deposit requirement and proceeded to deal with the appeal, considering the absence of representation from the appellants.

Issue 2: Classification of Services for Service Tax:
The original authority classified the services provided by the appellants, including marketing of credit cards, personal loans, housing loans, collection services, and administrative assistance, as "Business Auxiliary Services" subject to service tax under the Finance Act, 1994. The authority found non-registration for service tax and suppression of facts by the appellants, leading to the demand for tax and imposition of penalty.

Issue 3: Compliance with Section 35F:
The tribunal observed that the demand for tax on the appellants appeared prima facie sustainable based on the services provided. The appellate authority had directed a pre-deposit of Rs. 10 lakhs under Section 35F, which the appellants contested without presenting fresh grounds. The tribunal exercised its inherent powers to consider the appellants' application for reconsideration of the pre-deposit direction, ultimately upholding the requirement for pre-deposit.

Issue 4: Violation of Natural Justice:
The tribunal found a violation of natural justice in the appellate authority dismissing the appeal without notice to the appellants. Consequently, the tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, directing the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal on its merits in accordance with the law. The appellants were granted an opportunity to be heard, with a condition to pre-deposit Rs. 10 lakhs within 30 days from receipt of the order.

In conclusion, the tribunal addressed the issues of pre-deposit waiver, service tax classification, compliance with Section 35F, and violation of natural justice in the judgment, ultimately allowing the appeal for further consideration on its merits.