2009 (2) TMI 146 - AT - Service Tax

Commercial Vehicle Finance Business Auxiliary Service Exemption notification n. 25/2004 ST dated 10-9-2004 Sale and Purchase of Goods Versus Sale of Servcie Authority denied held that , the activity of the assessee is also not covered under Notification No.13/2003-ST dated 20-6-2003 as the assessee was not engaged in sale and purchase of goods but sale of services , which is beyond the ambit of Notification No.13/2003-ST, dated 20-6-2003 matter remanded to Commissioner (Appeals)

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of Notification No. 25/2004 for service tax exemption during a specific period.
Classification of services provided by a partnership firm under Business Auxiliary Services.

Issue 1: Interpretation of Notification No. 25/2004 for service tax exemption during a specific period.
The case involved a partnership firm engaged in marketing financial products and schemes of a company providing commercial vehicle finance. The firm contended that the services provided by them were exempt from service tax under Notification No. 25/2004 dated 10-9-2004. The dispute arose from a show-cause notice demanding duty on services rendered from 1-7-2003 to 31-8-2004. The adjudicating authority upheld the demand, but the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the order, leading to the appeal. The Revenue argued that the exemption under Notification No. 25/2004 applied only from 10-9-2004 and not to services provided earlier. The Commissioner (Appeals) was criticized for misdirecting the issue, as the services were deemed to fall under Business Auxiliary Services, not covered by the exemption. The Tribunal found the Commissioner's decision lacking clarity and remanded the matter for reconsideration, allowing the Revenue's appeal for a fresh review.

Issue 2: Classification of services provided by a partnership firm under Business Auxiliary Services.
The core issue was whether the services rendered by the partnership firm fell under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. The Commissioner (Appeals) had not conclusively determined this aspect, leading to a lack of clarity in the decision. The partnership firm argued that their services did not qualify as Business Auxiliary Services until 10-9-2004, relying on the exemption notification. However, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had not adequately addressed this argument. The Tribunal emphasized the need for a proper examination of whether the services provided by the firm indeed fell under Business Auxiliary Services. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case for a fresh consideration by the Commissioner (Appeals) to determine the classification of the services provided by the partnership firm accurately.