2016 (1) TMI 975 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of service - Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) or Clearing and Forwarding agent (C&F) service - appellant had promoted the business of the Principal. He was contributory to the growth of the business of the principal procuring orders for him and also exploring potential customers and channelized the purchase orders. - Held that - Law is well settled that the scope of taxing entry is to be strictly construed and there is no intendment about tax. The facts and circumstances of the case warrant to bring the activity carried out by the appellant as per agreement to the scope of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). This satisfies the principle of classification laid down in Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994, excludes the other category of classification claimed by Revenue for the reason that the taxing entry most specifically attracts an activity shall bring that service into the same class and no other class by any remote construction - Decided in favor of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Classification of services under "Clearing and Forwarding Agent" or "Business Auxiliary Service" for taxation.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Classification of services
The appellant contended that their activities, as per the agreement, fell under the scope of "Business Auxiliary Service" (BAS) and should be exempt from taxation under the relevant notification. They argued that the activities of promoting the principal's business, procuring orders, and exploring potential customers aligned more with BAS than with the "Clearing and Forwarding Agent" service as alleged by the Revenue. The appellant highlighted the specific definitions and scope of BAS under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994, emphasizing that their services fit within the ambit of BAS. Additionally, they referred to an exemption notification (No. 13/2003-ST) that exempted business auxiliary services provided by commission agents during a specific period. The appellant urged that their services should be classified under BAS to avoid taxation under the C & F Agent category.

Issue 2: Adjudication and Revenue's stance
The Revenue argued that the appellant's services should be classified as "Clearing and Forwarding Agency" services based on the classification rule. They maintained that the appropriate levy had been imposed as per the adjudication. However, the appellant contended that their activities aligned more with BAS than with the C & F Agent category. The Tribunal examined both sides' contentions and reviewed the records.

Issue 3: Tribunal's decision
After hearing arguments from both parties and examining the legal provisions, the Tribunal found merit in the appellant's submissions. The Tribunal emphasized the principle of strict construction of taxing entries and clarified that there should be no intendment about tax. They concluded that the appellant's activities aligned more with BAS as per the agreement, satisfying the classification principle under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and exempting them from taxation under the C & F Agents service category. The judgment highlighted that the specific taxing entry should determine the classification of services, bringing the appellant's activities under BAS without being taxable under the C & F Agent category.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides insights into the classification of services for taxation and the Tribunal's decision based on the legal provisions and arguments presented by both parties.