2015 (8) TMI 305 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre deposit - Advertising Services or Business Auxiliary Services - Held that - adjudicating authority as well as the first appellate authority has held that the activity of the appellant in so far as receiving commission from the print media fall, under the category of Business Auxiliary Services and amount paid by the appellant is considered as correct tax liability and appropriated against the service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. On a specific query from the Bench, as also seen from the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel was unable to point out to us whether they have contested the classification of the services before the Tribunal. Since the appellant has not contested the classification made by the lower authorities, we find that the appeal against the order is devoid of merits - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues involved: Refund claim of service tax wrongly assessed on commission from print media under the category of "Advertising Services" for the period July 2004 to March 2006, reclassification of services to Business Auxiliary Services, contesting the classification of services before the Tribunal.

The judgment pertains to a refund claim of service tax amounting to &8377; 80,123 filed by the appellant. The appellant had paid the service tax under the category of "Advertising Services" but sought a refund, arguing that the tax was wrongly assessed on a commission received from print media. The issue revolved around the reclassification of services from advertising services to Business Auxiliary Services by the authorities. The show cause notice sought to reclassify the services, and both the adjudicating authority and the first appellate authority upheld this reclassification, considering the commission from print media as falling under Business Auxiliary Services. The appellant did not contest this classification before the Tribunal, which led the Tribunal to conclude that the appeal lacked merit. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.

The crux of the matter lay in the correct classification of the services provided by the appellant. The lower authorities reclassified the services from advertising services to Business Auxiliary Services, leading to the conclusion that the tax liability was correctly assessed. The appellant's failure to contest this reclassification before the Tribunal worked against their appeal. The Tribunal highlighted that the appellant's inability to point out any challenge to the classification of services further weakened their case. As a result, the Tribunal found the appeal devoid of merit and upheld the order-in-appeal, rejecting the appellant's claim for a refund of the service tax amount.

The judgment underscores the importance of contesting and challenging the classification of services at all stages of the legal proceedings. By not disputing the reclassification of services before the Tribunal, the appellant inadvertently weakened their position and failed to establish the grounds for a refund of the service tax amount. The Tribunal's decision to uphold the reclassification and reject the appeal serves as a reminder for appellants to diligently address and challenge any adverse classifications made by the authorities to safeguard their interests and claims effectively.