2011 (1) TMI 598 - AT - Service Tax

Demand with penalty - Business Auxiliary Service - It is noticed that the activities undertaken by the assessees include feeding the data provided by their clients in the computer net work system with the help of software specifically developed for the clients and generating the bills and delivering the bills and other reports to the clients - As during the period prior to 1.5.2006 the definition clearly exclude the Information Technology Services from the ambit of Business auxiliary services the activities undertaken by the assessees are not taxable under the category of Business auxiliary services - Decided in favour of the assessee

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appeal against order setting aside original authority's decision and imposing penalty.
2. Appeal against revision order confirming demand of service tax and penalties.
3. Interpretation of "Business Auxiliary Services" and "Information Technology Services" definitions.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against order setting aside original authority's decision and imposing penalty

The case involved multiple appeals arising from orders of the original authority and subsequent revisions. The department appealed against the Commissioner's decision setting aside the original authority's order confirming a demand for service tax and imposing penalties. The appellant, a data processing center, had developed software for a client, leading to a dispute over the nature of services rendered. The Commissioner held the services to be information technology services, not business auxiliary services. The department challenged this decision, leading to further penalties being imposed. The Tribunal considered the nature of services provided, the contractual arrangements, and the legal definitions to determine the tax liability and penalties.

Issue 2: Appeal against revision order confirming demand of service tax and penalties

Another appeal involved a business information service provider contesting a revision order that demanded service tax, interest, and penalties. The original authority had dropped proceedings, but the Commissioner revised the decision, imposing significant tax liabilities and penalties. The appellant argued that their services fell under information technology services, not business auxiliary services, and therefore should not be taxed as such. The Tribunal analyzed the services provided, the contractual terms, and the legal definitions to determine the correct tax treatment and penalties.

Issue 3: Interpretation of "Business Auxiliary Services" and "Information Technology Services" definitions

The Tribunal delved into the definitions of "Business Auxiliary Services" before and after a specific date to determine the tax liability of the appellants. The pre-2006 definition included information technology services, while the post-2006 definition excluded them from the category. The Tribunal examined the activities undertaken by the appellants, such as data processing and bill generation, to ascertain whether they qualified as information technology services or business auxiliary services. The distinction was crucial in determining the tax implications and penalties imposed on the appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by the business information service provider against the revision order confirming the demand for service tax and penalties. The demand and penalties were set aside. The department's appeal against the Commissioner's decision was rejected. The cross objection related to the same appeal was also disposed of. Additionally, the appeal by the data processing center against the penalty imposed was allowed, and the penalty was set aside. This comprehensive analysis highlights the intricate legal considerations and interpretations involved in the judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi.