2008 (9) TMI 96 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax under the head Business Auxiliary Service on the amount collected by the appellants from their own refinery towards the cost of additives (extra-mile diesel) used - held that no service tax was payable in respect of any service rendered by one unit of the company to another - the so-called service is one rendered by the appellants to themselves, such service cannot be subjected to levy of service tax under any category

Summary

Issues:
1. Demand of service tax under "Business Auxiliary Service" (BAS) for the period August 2003 to September 2006.
2. Penalties imposed on the appellants.

Analysis:
1. The appeal pertains to a demand of service tax under the head "Business Auxiliary Service" (BAS) for the period August 2003 to September 2006, along with challenges to penalties imposed on the appellants. The appellants collected an amount from their own refinery towards the cost of additives used in "extra-mile diesel." The appellants argued that they did not render any service to anyone but themselves during this activity. They contended that the demand of service tax on the amount collected from their own refinery was not sustainable. The appellants highlighted a similar demand that was vacated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli, for a subsequent period. The appellants also relied on a Tribunal decision in their favor, emphasizing that no service tax was payable for services rendered by one unit of a company to another.

2. The Tribunal examined the contentions and held that the appellants did not render any service to any other party besides themselves. The Revenue did not identify any service recipient in the impugned order. The Tribunal referenced a previous decision where it was established that services rendered by a company to itself are not subject to service tax. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court.

This judgment clarifies that services rendered by a company to itself are not liable for service tax, as established in previous Tribunal decisions. The case highlights the importance of identifying the recipient of services and the nature of the service provided when determining the applicability of service tax.