2020 (9) TMI 650 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of services - Business Auxiliary services or not - appellants are having authorized service station to carry out repairs, reconditioning or restoration of four wheeled motor vehicles manufactured by M/s Hero Honda Ltd. - services of promotion or marketing to the Bank/Non-banking Financial Institutions and Insurance Companies, who are providing loans to the customers - HELD THAT - The Tribunal in various cases has consistently held that promotion and marketing of loans and finance on behalf of the banking and non-banking financial institutions should appropriately be classifiable as Business Auxiliary Service and service tax liability is required to be discharged on such taxable service - In this case, admittedly the appellants did not pay the service tax into the Government exchequer and thereby, contravened the statutory provisions. Reliance can be placed in the case of ADDIS MARKETING VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, MUMBAI 2016 (11) TMI 19 - CESTAT MUMBAI - there are no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals). Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant's failure to appear for hearing.
2. Classification of services provided by the appellant under Business Auxiliary Service.
3. Discharge of service tax liability by the appellant.
4. Appellants' appeal against the impugned order.

Analysis:
1. The judgment begins by noting the absence of the appellants during the hearing despite prior notices. The Tribunal observes the lack of interest from the appellants in pursuing the appeals pending before them. Consequently, the Tribunal decides to proceed with the issue for decision based on the available records and assistance from the Revenue's authorized representative.

2. The case involves the appellants providing services such as promotion and marketing to financial institutions offering loans to customers. These services are deemed as Business Auxiliary Service under the Finance Act, 1994. The appellants failed to discharge their service tax liability for the disputed period of 2010-11, leading to penalties imposed by the order dated 31.10.2012. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this order in the impugned order dated 10.03.2015, which the appellants challenged by filing appeals before the Tribunal.

3. The Revenue's authorized representative cites previous Tribunal decisions, including Pagariya Auto Centre, Aarpanna Automotive Pvt. Ltd., Hyundai Motor India Ltd., and Addis Marketing, to support the classification of promotion and marketing services as Business Auxiliary Service. These decisions establish that service tax liability must be fulfilled for such services. The Tribunal concurs with these precedents, emphasizing that the appellants' non-payment of service tax violated statutory provisions.

4. Ultimately, the Tribunal finds no fault in the impugned order issued by the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismisses the appeals filed by the appellants. The decision is based on the consistent interpretation of the law regarding the classification of services and the obligation to discharge service tax liability. The judgment concludes with the pronouncement of the decision in the open court.