2009 (5) TMI 78 - AT - Service Tax

Scope of business auxiliary service section 65(19) - whether the activity of collection of phone bill payment, receiving remittances from abroad and distribution of funds from various branches, collection of monthly bills on behalf of cellular companies, issuing Demand Drafts on behalf of UTI Banks and providing assistance to various banks for collection of instruments thereon in certain specified counters where the assessee has got branches would fall under the category of business auxiliary services held that - The assessee may be getting paid for rendering the said services in the form of commission, but that does not mean that the said activity would fall under different class of services, i.e., business auxiliary services. We find that the issue in this case is squarely covered by our Final Orders 68-70/08 and 1333/08. The contention of the revenue that they have not accepted our Final Order is not a valid reason for confirming the demand. In view of this we allow the assessee s appeal and reject the revenue appeals

Summary

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, BANGALORE, consisting of Technical Member T.K. JAYARAMAN and Judicial Member M.V. RAVINDRAN, heard four appeals against OIA Nos. 154 and 155/08. The appeals were filed by both the revenue and the assessee. The cases shared a common issue regarding the provision of customer care services without registering as a service provider, paying service tax, or filing statutory returns. The Service Tax Division, Cochin, discovered the non-compliance and issued a show-cause notice to the assessee. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand and imposed penalties. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), who partially ruled in favor of both parties. The Cost Accountant representing the assessee argued that the activities in question fell under "Banking and Financial Services" and were already subject to service tax. The department contended that the services provided by the assessee were classifiable under business auxiliary services. The Tribunal determined that the activities in question aligned with banking and financial services, and thus, the demand was not justified. The Tribunal referred to previous Final Orders that supported the assessee's position and rejected the revenue's appeals. Consequently, the assessee's appeal was allowed, and the revenue's appeals were dismissed.