2007 (7) TMI 200 - AT - Service Tax

Appellants merely purchase SIM cards and recharge coupons from BSNL and sell the same for a profit - It is also seen that Sales Tax Authorities are proceeding against the similarly situated parties for payment of Sales Tax - Bench had already taken a view that the appellants do not render any service but simply sell the goods - Therefore, they would not be liable to pay Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Services assessee s appeal allowed

Summary

Issues:
Whether the appellants are liable to pay Service Tax under the category of "Business Auxiliary Services" for selling pre-paid SIM cards and recharge coupons purchased from BSNL.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Cochin. The appellant's advocate argued that the appellants only sell pre-paid SIM cards and recharge coupons for profit, without providing any other services subject to Service Tax. The advocate referred to previous decisions of the Tribunal to support their case. The JDR contended that the appellants market BSNL goods and should be liable to pay Service Tax under "Business Auxiliary Services."

Upon careful consideration, the Member (T) found that the issue was already addressed in previous Tribunal decisions cited by the appellant's advocate. The Tribunal had previously ruled that selling SIM cards and recharge coupons without providing additional services does not attract Service Tax under "Business Auxiliary Services." The Member noted that Sales Tax Authorities were pursuing similar cases for Sales Tax payment, further supporting the view that the appellants were not providing services but merely selling goods. Consequently, the appeal was allowed based on the precedent set by the earlier decisions, providing relief to the appellants if necessary.

This judgment highlights the importance of precedent in tax matters and the significance of distinguishing between the sale of goods and the provision of services when determining tax liabilities. The decision underscores the need for consistency in interpreting tax laws and applying established legal principles to similar cases.