2012 (8) TMI 48 - AT - Service Tax

Services provided was to arrange finance - Business auxiliary service (BAS) - held that - in the case of Chambal Motors (P) Ltd & Bhatia & Co.(2008 (7) TMI 69 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI), it is settled that the appellant s activities shall fall within the category of BAS. The appellants are small business entity. Perusal of the adjudication order shows that the confusion of the law at the insertion had caused hardship in determining liability and law was under debate. Law being in infancy stage for the impugned period, the appellants deserve consideration under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. - Penalty waived.

Summary

Issues:
1. Extension of time for hearing the appeal.
2. Classification of services provided under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS).
3. Imposition of penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
4. Consideration for waiver of penalties under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Extension of Time for Hearing the Appeal:
The appeal in question could not be heard within the prescribed 180-day period, leading to the filing of a miscellaneous application for extension. However, since the appeal was taken up on the day of the hearing, the application for extension was deemed unnecessary and dismissed.

Classification of Services Provided under Business Auxiliary Services (BAS):
The services provided by the appellants involved arranging finance, which was deemed to fall within the ambit of Business Auxiliary Services (BAS). The tribunal concluded that the financing business was benefited by the services provided, leading to the dismissal of all three appeals on the grounds of service tax demand.

Imposition of Penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78:
The adjudication orders had imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, due to the liability to tax under the law. The tribunal confirmed the penalty under Section 77 for default to register in all three cases.

Consideration for Waiver of Penalties under Section 80:
Regarding penalties under Sections 76 and 78, the appellants argued that the taxability of the service was uncertain, and they were unable to precisely determine their liability. Considering the confusion and debate surrounding the law during the relevant period, the tribunal decided to waive the penalties under Sections 76 and 78 under Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994. This decision was influenced by the quantum of receipts, the smallness of the appellant's business, and the hardships faced by small taxpayers in interpreting the law.

Precedent Reference and Final Decision:
The tribunal referenced a previous case to support the classification of the appellant's activities within the category of BAS. Ultimately, all three appeals were allowed based on the considerations and decisions outlined above.