2018 (5) TMI 836 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Service - the service outsourced by ICICI Bank - Held that - we find from the pleadings and oral submissions of the appellant that they had nowhere admitted their liability before 10.9.2004 and had in fact contested it in their grounds of appeal before the Commissioner (A) - the first appellate authority has not given any analysis and findings on the merits of the issue, which was raised in the show-cause notice and which was adjudicated by the adjudicating authority - the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (A) to give reasoned analysis and findings on the contentions of the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant was providing taxable services under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' without obtaining service tax registration and without payment of service tax.
2. Whether the findings of the Commissioner (A) regarding the liability under 'Business Auxiliary Service' were contested by the appellant.
3. Whether the first appellate authority provided adequate analysis and findings on the merits of the issues raised in the show-cause notice.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the appellant, a direct selling agent of ICICI Bank, being accused of providing taxable services under 'Business Auxiliary Service' without proper registration and payment of service tax. A show-cause notice was issued for the period from July 2003 to December 2004, proposing a demand along with interest and penalties under various sections of the Finance Act, 1994. The matter was adjudicated resulting in a confirmed demand, interest, and penalties. The appellant appealed against the order, claiming they only provided evaluation services to ICICI Bank, not other services subject to service tax.

2. The appellant argued that they contested the demand under 'Business Auxiliary Service' before 10.9.2004, contrary to the findings of the Commissioner (A). The appellant maintained that their challenge was based on the merits of the case and the penalties. The Tribunal observed discrepancies in the findings and submissions, noting that the appellant did contest the liability before 10.9.2004 as indicated in their appeal grounds before the Commissioner (A). The Tribunal found that the first appellate authority failed to provide a detailed analysis on the merits of the issues raised in the show-cause notice and adjudicated by the authority.

3. After hearing both sides, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter back to the Commissioner (A) for a reasoned analysis and findings on the contentions of the appellant regarding the merit of the issues alleged in the show-cause notice and confirmed in the adjudication order. The Tribunal emphasized that all issues should be kept open, and the appellant should be given an opportunity to defend their case. The appeal was disposed of by way of remand to the Commissioner (A) for further proceedings and analysis.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the arguments presented by the parties, and the Tribunal's decision to remand the case for a more thorough examination of the merits of the contentions raised by the appellant.