2008 (10) TMI 81 - AT - Service Tax

Claim of refund on the basis that the service tax was not payable by commission agents under the category of Business Auxiliary Service was rejected - appellant has not been able to put up a valid case against the classification and assessment of the services rendered by it during the material period under the category of C& F Agents - appellant has not put forward any valid ground as to how their services could be classified under Business Auxiliary Service claim was rejected rightly

Summary

Issues:
Claim for refund of service tax paid by appellants under the category of 'Clearing and Forwarding Agents' during a specific period based on the contention that the services rendered were exempt under Business Auxiliary Service.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed by M/s. Deccan Organics challenging the rejection of their claim for refund of service tax paid under the category of 'Clearing and Forwarding Agents' during a particular period. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection of the claim, stating that the services provided by the appellants were correctly assessed under the said category. The appellants argued that they functioned as commission agents during the material period and thus the services rendered were exempt under Business Auxiliary Service, warranting a refund of the tax paid amounting to Rs. 1,88,443.

The Judicial Member, after reviewing the submissions and records, found that the appellants failed to present a compelling case against the classification and assessment of their services under the 'Clearing and Forwarding Agents' category. Despite the appellants' claim of functioning as commission agents during the material period, the assessment continued to be under the 'Clearing and Forwarding Agents' service category even before and after the specific period in question. The Judicial Member noted the absence of valid grounds supporting the reclassification of services under Business Auxiliary Service.

The Judicial Member dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellants did not provide substantial evidence or valid reasoning to challenge the classification and assessment of their services. The continuous assessment under the 'Clearing and Forwarding Agents' category before and after the specific period further weakened the appellants' argument for reclassification under Business Auxiliary Service. Consequently, the claim for refund of service tax paid by the appellants was denied, affirming the original authority's decision.