2017 (7) TMI 947 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Services - activity of providing Multi Level Marketing by the appellant to its principal - penalty - Held that - there was ambiguity in interpretation of the statutory definition of Business Auxiliary Service, we are of the view that the demand for extended period of limitation cannot be sustained. There is no sustainable ground for invoking fraud, misstatement etc., on the part of the appellant for defrauding the Government Revenue - considering the fact that the appellant has not involved in the fraudulent activities concerning suppression fraud etc, we are of the view that the penalty imposed under Section 77 & 78 ibid can be set aside by invoking Section 80 in the interest of justice. We remand the matter back to the original authority for quantification of service tax liability payable by the appellant within the normal period of limitation - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved: Non-payment of service tax on Multi Level Marketing services, ambiguity in levy of service tax, applicability of penalties under the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:

1. Non-payment of service tax on Multi Level Marketing services:
The appeal pertains to the non-payment of service tax on the activity of providing Multi Level Marketing services by the appellant to its principal company. The service tax Department confirmed the demand under the taxable category of Business Auxiliary Services for the services provided during the disputed period.

2. Ambiguity in levy of service tax:
The appellant's advocate concedes that the services provided fall under the taxable category of Business Auxiliary Service based on a previous Tribunal decision. However, he argues that the demand should be limited to the normal period of limitation due to ambiguity in the interpretation of the statutory definition of Business Auxiliary Service. The Tribunal's decision in another case clarified that Multi Level Marketing services are taxable under Business Auxiliary Service, resolving the ambiguity.

3. Applicability of penalties under the Finance Act, 1994:
The appellant's advocate argues that since there was no fraud, collusion, or intent to evade payment of service tax, penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 should not be imposed. The Tribunal agrees that there is no sustainable ground for invoking fraud, misstatement, etc., and decides to set aside the penalties imposed under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, invoking Section 80 in the interest of justice.

4. Tribunal's decision and remand:
The Tribunal acknowledges the resolution of the contentious issue regarding the levy of service tax on Multi Level Marketing services. It concludes that the demand for an extended period of limitation cannot be sustained due to the ambiguity in the interpretation of the statutory definition. The Tribunal remands the matter back to the original authority for quantification of the service tax liability payable by the appellant within the normal period of limitation, as per the decision on the taxability of Multi Level Marketing services under Business Auxiliary Service.

In conclusion, the appeal is disposed of by setting aside the impugned order, remanding the matter for quantification of service tax liability within the normal period, and waiving the penalties imposed under the Finance Act, 1994.