2019 (1) TMI 1383 - AT - Service Tax

Validity of SCN - Daughter notice - mother notice issued by the Department had already been adjudicated - business auxiliary service - management, maintenance or repair service - health and fitness service - demand of service tax - Held that - Both the daughter and the mother notices have alleged that the services provided by the appellant are confirming to the definition of taxable services under the category of business auxiliary service , management, maintenance or repair service and health and fitness service - Since the appeal filed by the appellant against the adjudication order 20.1.2012 has already been set aside by the Tribunal vide order dated 12.6.2017, in allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant, different stand cannot be taken at this juncture for deciding the appeal differently - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Service tax demand confirmation for 'business auxiliary service', 'management, maintenance or repair service', and 'health and fitness service' for the period October 2010 to March 2011.

Analysis:

The appeal challenged an order confirming a service tax demand of ?23,95,850 along with interest and penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for services provided by the appellant falling under 'business auxiliary service', 'management, maintenance or repair service', and 'health and fitness service'. The dispute pertained to the period from October 2010 to March 2011.

The appellant's advocate argued that a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case for the period July 2003 to September 2007 favored the appellant. The Tribunal's decision dated 12.6.2017 allowed the appeals in favor of the appellant under identical circumstances. Therefore, the advocate contended that the same legal position should apply to the current case for the period October 2010 to March 2011.

On the contrary, the Revenue's representative supported the findings in the impugned order confirming the service tax demand. Both parties presented their arguments, and the case records were examined by the Tribunal members.

Upon reviewing the impugned order, the Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had previously issued a mother notice, which had been adjudicated in an earlier order dated 20.1.2012. The impugned daughter notice raised similar allegations regarding the taxable services provided by the appellant. As the Tribunal had already allowed the appellant's appeal against the mother notice in a previous decision dated 12.6.2017, the Tribunal found that a different stance could not be taken in the present case. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order lacked merit and was set aside, allowing the appeal in favor of the appellant.

In the final pronouncement, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant.