2012 (6) TMI 555 - AT - Service Tax

Service Tax demand and penalty - the activity of marketing of loan schemes from various banks, financial institution, the appellant has provided services falling under the category of Business Auxiliary services - Held that - Since show cause notice stands issued on 7.2.2007 for the period 1.7.03 to 31.8.04, thus invoking the longer period of limitation to be decided in favour of the assesses and as such has held the demand to be barred by limitation -BRIJ MOTORS PVT. LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR 2011 (11) TMI 410 (Tri) - as demand in this case can be sustained only to the extent covered in the normal period of limitation in such a situation penalties are not imposable either - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalties
2. Classification of services under Business Auxiliary services
3. Demand of limitation based on the period of notice

Analysis:
1. The judgment addresses the issue of pre-deposit of Service Tax and penalties, which were initially imposed on the appellants. The Bench decided to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit amounting to Rs.53,598/- along with the penalties before proceeding to decide the appeal itself. This step was taken as the issue was already covered by a previous decision of the Tribunal.

2. The main issue in the case revolved around the classification of services provided by the appellant. The Service Tax was confirmed against the appellant based on the argument that their activity of marketing loan schemes from various banks and financial institutions fell under the category of Business Auxiliary services. The advocate for the appellant acknowledged that a similar issue had been decided against them in a previous case, but contested the demand of limitation.

3. The demand of limitation was a crucial aspect of the case, with the show cause notice being issued on 7.2.2007 for the period from 1.7.03 to 31.8.04, invoking the longer period of limitation. The Tribunal referred to a previous case, Brij Motors Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Kanpur, where it was noted that decisions favoring the assesses existed, leading to the demand being considered barred by limitation. The Tribunal emphasized that in situations where judicial forums interpreted matters differently, the extended period of time could not be invoked for raising demands. As a result, the demand in the present case was also held to be barred by limitation, leading to the setting aside of the demand and penalties imposed, with the appeal being allowed and consequential relief granted.