2010 (1) TMI 165 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Services- The demand of service tax for the activities carried out by the appellants namely machining drilling turning surfacing on iron castings received from M/s. Uni Tools together with interest and imposition of penalty is challenged by the assessees herein. Held that- the appellant were under a reasonable belief that they were not liable to service tax and therefore set aside the penalty by extending protection under section 80 of the Finance Act 1994. Penalty of Rs. 1, 000 imposed under section 77 of the Finance Act is however upheld as the provisions of the above section are attracted for failure to file ST-3 returns. The appeal is thus partly allowed by setting aside the demand prior to 16-6-2005 and setting aside the penalties under sections 76 and 78.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to demand of service tax for activities carried out by the appellants, interpretation of 'processing' under 'Business Auxiliary Service', applicability of penalty under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act.

Analysis:

1. The judgment addresses the challenge to the demand of service tax for activities like machining, drilling, turning, and surfacing on iron castings received from a specific entity. The appellants contested the imposition of service tax, interest, and penalty on these activities.

2. The presiding judge considered the argument that the activities conducted by the appellants constituted 'processing,' which was not initially covered under the definition of 'Business Auxiliary Service' before 16-6-2005. Referring to a previous Tribunal order in Auto Coats v. CCE, it was decided to set aside the service tax liability for the period preceding 16-6-2005. However, for the period after the inclusion of processing of goods under 'Business Auxiliary Service,' the demand for service tax was upheld as the appellants had already paid the tax and interest for that period.

3. Regarding the penalties under sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, the judge acknowledged the appellant's argument that they were unaware of the new levy and believed they were not liable to pay service tax. Consequently, the penalties under sections 76 and 78 were set aside, providing protection under section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. However, a penalty of Rs. 1,000 imposed under section 77 for failure to file ST-3 returns was upheld.

4. In conclusion, the appeal was partially allowed by setting aside the demand for service tax before 16-6-2005 and canceling the penalties under sections 76 and 78. The penalty under section 77 for not filing ST-3 returns was upheld due to non-compliance with the relevant provisions.