2017 (9) TMI 356 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Services - bill printing activity - Held that - in an identical issue, this Tribunal in the case of appellant itself CCE, Delhi Versus M/s Ricoh India Limited And Vice-Versa 2017 (3) TMI 1159 - CESTAT NEW DELHI , where it was held that printing activity undertaken by the appellant will not liable to payment of service tax under the category of BAS - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:

1. Classification of bill printing activity under taxable category of BAS.
2. Interpretation of Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Comparison with a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case.

Classification of bill printing activity under taxable category of BAS:

The appeal was against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, New Delhi, regarding non-payment of service tax on billing services provided to a telecom company. The Department argued that the activities fell under the taxable service of BAS due to the ownership and maintenance of plant & machinery by the appellant. However, the appellant contended that bill printing activity does not fall under BAS as defined in Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not involved in determining bill details or authenticity, but merely printed bills based on data provided by the telecom company. The Tribunal held that such activity did not qualify as business auxiliary service as there was no involvement with promotion, provision of service on behalf of the client, or third-party users of the telecom service. Therefore, the printing activity was not liable for service tax under BAS.

Interpretation of Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994:

The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994, in the context of the appellant's bill printing activity. It was observed that the appellant's role was limited to printing preformatted telephone bills based on data provided by the telecom company. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant did not engage in activities related to promotion, provision of service on behalf of the client, or involvement with third-party users of the telecom service. By interpreting the provisions of the Act in light of the appellant's specific activities, the Tribunal concluded that the printing service did not qualify as business auxiliary service as defined under Section 65(19).

Comparison with a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case:

The appellant cited a previous Tribunal decision in their favor, where a similar issue was addressed, and the impugned order was set aside. The Tribunal noted that in the earlier case involving the same appellant, it was held that the printing activity undertaken by the appellant was not liable for service tax under the category of BAS. By referencing the previous decision, the Tribunal established consistency in its interpretation of the law regarding the appellant's bill printing activity. This comparison with the previous judgment reinforced the Tribunal's conclusion that the appellant's activities did not fall under the taxable category of BAS. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant based on the precedent set by the earlier decision.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of classification, interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the significance of a previous Tribunal decision in resolving the dispute regarding the appellant's bill printing activity and its tax liability.