2023 (7) TMI 1017 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of Service Tax - Business Auxiliary Service or not - loading/unloading activities and transferring the goods on behalf of the Railways - HELD THAT - On perusing the documents, it is seen that the Adjudicating Authority has gone into all the details including the Agreements entered into by the Appellant with the Indian Railways. He has passed a considered decision justifying the confirmation of demand holding that the said Agency have provided incidental and ancillary services and hence, fulfilled the criteria of clause (vii) of the definition of the Business Auxiliary Service. There are no reason to interfere with the factual findings of the Adjudicating Authority and the statutory provisions applied by him - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in this case include non-service of Hearing Notice to the Appellant, lack of interest by the Appellant in pursuing their Appeal, and the alleged failure of the Appellant to pay Service Tax for providing Business Auxiliary Service to Indian Railways.

Non-Service of Hearing Notice to the Appellant:
The Appellate Tribunal directed the AR's Office to serve the Hearing Notice to the Appellant after previous attempts were unsuccessful. The communication sent to the Appellant was returned without being served, prompting the Tribunal to take up the matter for disposal with the assistance of the Learned AR.

Lack of Interest by the Appellant in Pursuing Appeal:
The Appellant, as per factual details, was found to be uninterested in pursuing their Appeal, which was filed back in 2010. Despite this lack of interest, the Tribunal proceeded with the disposal of the Appeal in the interest of justice with the help of the Learned AR.

Failure to Pay Service Tax for Business Auxiliary Service:
The case revolved around the Appellant allegedly acting as an agent providing Business Auxiliary Service to Indian Railways without paying the necessary Service Tax. The Appellant was involved in loading/unloading activities, transferring goods on behalf of the Railways, collecting amounts from clients, and remitting them to Indian Railways in exchange for a commission. The DGCEI investigation revealed the Appellant's non-compliance, leading to a demand confirmation by lower Authorities, which the Appellant challenged before the Tribunal.

Decision and Rationale:
Upon reviewing the documents and the Adjudicating Authority's decision, the Tribunal found that the Authority had thoroughly examined the agreements between the Appellant and Indian Railways. The Authority justified the demand confirmation by highlighting various activities undertaken by the Appellant on behalf of the Railways, such as transportation of goods, customer care services, marketing, and promotion of the Railways' business. The Tribunal concluded that there was no reason to interfere with the factual findings and statutory provisions applied by the Adjudicating Authority, leading to the dismissal of the Appeal filed by the Appellant.