2008 (4) TMI 72 - AT - Service Tax

Demand is confirmed on the ground that the applicants were providing business auxiliary service to the petroleum company - Contention of the applicants is that establishment expenses are being reimbursed to them by the company, and therefore, that portion cannot be added for charging service tax on the business auxiliary service - applicants are directed to deposit Rs. 35,000/-each in addition to the amount already deposited by the applicants stay partly granted

Summary

Issues:
- Stay applications for waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalty
- Whether establishment expenses reimbursed by the company can be excluded from service tax calculation
- Comparison with previous tribunal decisions for similar cases

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, New Delhi, involved two stay applications concerning the waiver of pre-deposit of service tax and penalty. The issue revolved around the confirmation of demand for business auxiliary service provided to a petroleum company. The applicants argued that establishment expenses reimbursed by the company should not be included in the service tax calculation. They cited the case of Malabar Management Services to support their contention. However, the Revenue contended that the applicants were indeed providing business auxiliary service, and a previous tribunal stay order had directed a similar assessee to pre-deposit 50% of the service tax amount.

The Tribunal noted that the decision in the Malabar Management Services case was not directly applicable to the current situation since it involved a different contract related to marketing personal loan products for a bank. Additionally, in a similar case involving Shri Vijay Kumar & Ors. v. CCE, Ludhiana, the Tribunal had directed the applicants to deposit almost 50% of the disputed amount. Considering the previous stay order, the Tribunal directed the applicants to deposit an additional amount of Rs. 35,000 each, in addition to the amount already deposited. Upon compliance with this directive, the balance of service tax and penalties would be waived, with a reporting compliance set for 16-6-2008.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of specific contract details and previous tribunal decisions in determining the liability for service tax and penalties in cases of business auxiliary services. The Tribunal's decision underscored the need for careful consideration of the facts and legal precedents in such matters to ensure a fair and just outcome.