2019 (2) TMI 952 - AT - Service Tax

Non-payment of service tax - consideration received by them for providing taxable service of Business Support Service during the period 2008-09 to 2011-12 - demand of service tax with interest and penalty - Held that - The Appellate Authority has examined all the evidences placed before him and have come to a finding that the appellants were awarded the work order for supply of (or printing of) printed mark-sheet, tabulation chart, admit cards, verification cards, etc. by various Universities or Institutions directly or some contracted, such works through private firms. The assessee had also submitted confirmation letter of Universities stating that they had done printing work in the period of dispute and some work orders containing details of nature of work order done and document for making payments also stand scrutinized by him. From perusal of Profit & Loss Account, ITR, etc. it cannot be concluded rather the Bills, Work Orders, etc. produced by them clearly show that such work was awarded by Universities, Professional Exam Council, etc. who are Public Educational Institutions and not doing any commercial activities for Business or Commerce. Consequently, the appellant can also not be alleged for supporting any business activity of their clients. As regards work done for private firm M/s MCM, I find that such printing work of Universities, Exam Council, etc. was sub-contracted to them through M/s MCM. Thus, the conclusion of the Adjudicating Authority that the appellant were providing Business Support Service to these clients is unfounded and lacks support from documentary evidence. Revenue has not been able to adduce any evidence to the contrary - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax for providing 'Business Support Service' during a specific period.
- Whether the impugned service of printing exam stationery for Universities is exempt from service tax under Notification No.14/2004-ST.
- Whether the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) are justified and supported by documentary evidence.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a proprietorship firm engaged in providing services under categories such as 'Business Auxiliary Service', 'Information Technology Software Service', and 'Maintenance or Repair Service'. The appellant was involved in activities like ICR form scanning, processing of admit cards, verification cards, roll sheets, data processing, and ICR scanning for various clients. The Department alleged non-payment of service tax amounting to a specific sum for providing 'Business Support Service' during a particular period.

2. A Show Cause Notice was issued, demanding the unpaid service tax along with interest and penalties. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demand, imposed penalties, and also penalized for late submission of ST-3s. The appellant then filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Lucknow, challenging the order.

3. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the Order-in-Original, observing that the appellant's work of printing stationery for Universities was not covered under the category of taxable service 'Business Support Service'. The Commissioner relied on documentary evidence provided by the appellant, including bills, work orders, and certificates, to support the claim that the printing activity was exempt from service tax under Notification No.14/2004-ST.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) further noted that the appellant's claim of printing activity being exempt under the said notification was valid. The impugned order confirming the demand of service tax, interest, and penalties was set aside based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the Revenue filed an appeal against this decision.

5. Upon reviewing the impugned order, the Appellate Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had thoroughly examined the evidence and correctly concluded that the appellant's work involved printing stationery for Universities and Institutions, exempt from service tax. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's findings, stating that the Revenue failed to provide any contrary evidence. Therefore, the Revenue's appeal was rejected, and the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision was upheld.