2019 (5) TMI 1136 - AT - Service Tax

Recovery of Service tax - Business Auxiliary Services - appellant received certain commissions and paid commission to agents outside India - applicability of N/N. 25/2004 dated 10.09.2004-ST and N/N. 6/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005 - HELD THAT - The appellants have rendered services to their clients in relation to procurement of goods or services which are inputs for the clients. Their clients are manufacturers. Therefore, the exemption contained in N/N. 25/2004 is applicable to them - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Applicability of Notification No.25/2004 dated 10.09.2004 and No.6/2005-ST dated 1.3.2005.
2. Liability to pay service tax for the year 2004-2005.
3. Interpretation of the exemption under Notification No.25/2004 for 'Business Auxiliary Services'.

Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the applicability of Notification No.25/2004 and No.6/2005-ST. The appellant argued that the exemption under Notification No.25/2004 should apply to them as they provided services related to procurement of goods or services which are inputs for their clients who are manufacturers. The lower authorities only considered the exemption under Notification No.6/2005-ST, concluding that service tax was payable for the year 2004-2005. The appellant relied on previous decisions to support their claim.

2. The appellant contended that they were not liable to pay service tax for the year 2004-2005 based on their services falling under the exemption provided in Notification No.25/2004. The authorities had not considered their submissions regarding this notification, leading to a dispute over the tax liability for that period.

3. After hearing both parties and examining the case records, the Tribunal found that the appellants had indeed provided services in relation to the procurement of goods or services which are inputs for their clients who are manufacturers. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the exemption contained in Notification No.25/2004 applied to the appellants. As a result, the impugned order demanding service tax was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellants with consequential relief, if any.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision based on the interpretation of relevant notifications and previous legal precedents.