2019 (10) TMI 1564 - AT - Service Tax

Exemption to small service provider exemption when service turnover does not exceed Rs. 4 lakhs under N/N. 6/2005-S.T., dated.1-3-2005 - Denial of exemption on the ground that the appellant is providing branded services - HELD THAT - The facts are not in dispute that the appellant is a provider of services on behalf of M/s. HFCL and receiving commission from them. The appellant receiving collections under the brand/trade name of M/s. HFCL and the appellant is rendering Business Auxiliary Service to M/s. HFCL under its own name. Therefore, the appellant is not providing any branded services. In that circumstance, the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005 cannot be denied to the appellant. Therefore, there are no merits in the impugned order and the same is set aside. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues: Benefit of exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T. denied.

Analysis:
1. Issue: Denial of exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T.
- The appellant appealed against the impugned order denying them the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005.

2. Facts of the Case:
- M/s. HFCL Infotel Limited appointed the appellant as its direct marketing associates, local service agents, and collection agents for marketing communication services.
- Appellant provided various services on behalf of M/s. HFCL, such as jumpering, drop wire installation, maintenance, selling subscriptions, etc., and received commission for these activities.
- Appellant claimed SSI exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005, which was denied on the basis of providing branded services.

3. Contentions and Considerations:
- The appellant contended that they were not providing branded services but rendering Business Auxiliary Service under their own name.
- The Tribunal considered the submissions and found that the appellant operated under their name, not the brand/trade name of M/s. HFCL, and thus, were not providing branded services.

4. Decision and Reasoning:
- The Tribunal observed that the appellant was providing services under their name, not the brand name of M/s. HFCL, hence not offering branded services.
- Consequently, the Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible for the exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005, and set aside the impugned order.

5. Outcome:
- The appeal was allowed, and any consequential relief was granted to the appellant.

This judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHANDIGARH clarified that the appellant, by providing services under their own name and not the brand name of M/s. HFCL, was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005. The decision highlighted the distinction between providing branded services and operating under one's own name in the context of claiming exemptions under specific notifications.