2008 (7) TMI 28 - AT - Service Tax

Demand confirmed against the applicant under the category of business auxiliary service on the activity undertaken by them in respect of disposal of waste received from various industries - treatment of bio-medical waste incineration/shredding has been held as not covered by the category of business auxiliary service moreover impugned service was not provided on behalf of the client in as much as there is no 3rd person involved, so it is not taxable - Appeals are allowed by way of remand

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the service tax is applicable to the activity of treatment and disposal of waste received from various industries under the category of business auxiliary service.
2. Whether the incineration/shredding of bio-medical waste can be considered as "processing of goods" or "provision of service on behalf of the client" for the purpose of levying service tax.
3. Whether service tax should be levied on Goods Transport Agency Services provided by M/s Enviro Technology.

Issue 1:
The Tribunal found that the service tax was confirmed against the appellant for the activity of treatment and disposal of waste under the category of business auxiliary service. The appellant was engaged in stabilization, neutralization, or incineration of waste from various industries. The Tribunal referred to a letter from the Ministry of Finance, Central Board of Excise & Customs, which stated that the incineration/shredding of bio-medical waste does not fall under business auxiliary service as there is no 3rd person involved. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this part of the letter, citing an amendment in the definition of business auxiliary service extending its scope to services undertaken on behalf of and for the client. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to pass a fresh order considering the Board's interpretation and allowed the appellant to raise contentions in de-novo proceedings.

Issue 2:
Regarding the incineration/shredding of bio-medical waste, the Tribunal agreed with the first part of the Board's letter that this activity is not covered under business auxiliary service. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the second part of the letter, stating that the definition of business auxiliary service was amended to include services undertaken on behalf of the client. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner to reconsider this issue and seek clarification from the Board if necessary.

Issue 3:
In the case of M/s Enviro Technology, a part of the demand was confirmed for levying service tax on Goods Transport Agency Services. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner did not address the appellant's arguments on this issue. As the matter was being remanded on the first issue, the Tribunal directed the Commissioner to pass fresh orders on the Goods Transport Agency Services issue during the remand adjudication.

In conclusion, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, and the stay petitions were disposed of. The Tribunal provided detailed analysis and directions for each issue involved, ensuring a thorough review and consideration of the legal aspects and interpretations of the relevant laws and regulations.