2012 (9) TMI 102 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Services appellant use Computerized Reservation System (CRS) of two companies - appellant and GIPL and Abacus have joined hands in marketing and promotion of GIPL s and Abacus s activities in India in exchange for support fee Held that - In view of the appellant s agreement with GIPL and Abacus, their activity appears to be the marketing and promotion of the services being provided by the GIPL and Abacus and hence, the same appears to be covered by the definition of Business Auxiliary Services under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the services provided by the appellant to two companies are taxable under Business Auxiliary Services as per the Finance Act, 1994.
2. Imposition of Service tax, education cess, and penalties on the appellant.
3. Validity of the order passed by the Jt. Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:

Issue 1 - Taxability under Business Auxiliary Services:
The appellants, engaged in Air Travel Agency services, use Computerized Reservation Systems (CRS) of two companies for booking services. The department alleged that the appellants' activities amounted to marketing and promotion of services provided by the companies, making them taxable under Business Auxiliary Services. The agreements with the companies indicated a marketing and promotion arrangement, leading to the imposition of Service tax. The Tribunal found prima facie evidence that the appellants' activities aligned with the definition of Business Auxiliary Services. The appellants were directed to deposit 50% of the Service tax demand to continue the appeal process.

Issue 2 - Imposition of Tax, Cess, and Penalties:
The show cause notice demanded Service tax, education cess, and penalties from the appellants for the period from 1-10-2003 to 31-12-2010. The Jt. Commissioner confirmed the demand along with interest and imposed penalties under Sections 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision. The appellants contested that their activities did not constitute marketing and promotion, hence not taxable. However, the Tribunal upheld the tax imposition and directed a partial deposit to proceed with the appeal.

Issue 3 - Validity of Orders:
The orders passed by the Jt. Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) were challenged by the appellants. Despite their arguments against being classified under Business Auxiliary Services, the Tribunal found the agreements with the companies supported such a classification. The Tribunal upheld the decisions of the lower authorities, emphasizing the marketing and promotional nature of the appellants' activities. The appellants were directed to make a partial deposit to continue the appeal process, indicating a prima facie alignment with the definition of Business Auxiliary Services.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the appellants' activities with the companies fell under the definition of Business Auxiliary Services, warranting the imposition of Service tax, education cess, and penalties. The Tribunal directed the appellants to make a partial deposit to proceed with the appeal, considering the marketing and promotional aspects of their agreements with the companies.