2018 (5) TMI 311 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Service - direct selling agent of M/s ICICI Bank for marketing of Car Loan etc. - extended period of limitation - penalty - Held that - issue covered by the case of Masicon Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs CCE Meerut-I 2014 (6) TMI 729 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - demand upheld. Time limitation - penalty - Held that - the appellant is not registered with the department, accordingly, the authority below has rightly invoked extended period of limitation and imposed penalty while confirming the demand of service tax. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

Summary

Issues: Taxability of direct selling agent services under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) category, applicability of extended period of limitation, imposition of penalty.

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Ahmedabad dealt with the taxability of services provided by an appellant, acting as a direct selling agent for a bank, under the category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS). The appellant was issued a demand notice for service tax recovery, interest, and penalty. Despite multiple notices, the appellant did not appear, and the matter proceeded with the Ld. AR for the Revenue presenting the case. The Tribunal noted that the issue was similar to a previous judgment involving Masicon Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CCE Meerut-I, where the tax liability was confirmed. However, a key distinction was that the appellant in the present case was not registered with the department, leading to the invocation of the extended period of limitation and the imposition of a penalty, which was upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no discrepancies in the decisions of the lower authorities and dismissed the appeal, affirming the demand for service tax. The judgment was pronounced in the open court by the members of the Tribunal, Dr. D.M. Misra and Mr. Raju.

This judgment primarily addressed the taxability of services provided by a direct selling agent under the BAS category, the application of the extended period of limitation due to the appellant's lack of registration with the department, and the imposition of a penalty. The Tribunal relied on a previous case to establish precedent and upheld the decision of the lower authorities, confirming the demand for service tax. The appellant's failure to appear despite notices and the absence of any request for adjournment were noted by the Tribunal. The judgment emphasized the importance of compliance with tax regulations and the consequences of non-registration with the tax department. The legal analysis focused on the specific circumstances of the case, drawing parallels with relevant precedents to support the decision to dismiss the appeal and uphold the demand for service tax, interest, and penalty.