2018 (2) TMI 467 - AT - Service Tax

Small Scale exemption upto ₹ 10 lacs for providing BBusiness Auxiliary Services - commission received from the Bank & Financial Institutions for providing services to the Financial Institutions - N/N. 06/2005-ST dated 01/03/2005 - Held that - the said services are covered by the definition of Business Auxiliary Service and were otherwise eligible for levy of Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. Branded services - Use of brand name of financial institutions - benefit of N/N. 06/2005-ST dated 01/03/2005 - Held that - the said services were rendered to the Financial Institutions and therefore, the question of use of brand of the Financial Institutions by the Service Provider did not arise - services were not covered as Branded services and therefore, the Service Provider were eligible for exemption in terms of N/N. 06/2005-ST dated 01/03/2005. Matter remanded back to the file of Original Adjudicating Authority to allow the said exemption in terms of N/N. 06/2005-ST dated 01/03/2005, to the appellant and re-determine the Service Tax liability - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Business Auxiliary Service for commission received from Financial Institutions.
2. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01/03/2005.
3. Remand of the matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority.

Interpretation of Business Auxiliary Service:
The six appeals arose from a common Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Kanpur. The appellants received commission from Banks & Financial Institutions for services provided, leading the Revenue to believe the commission fell under the definition of Business Auxiliary Service. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled that the services provided by the appellants were akin to branded services and not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01/03/2005. Despite the absence of the appellant, the Tribunal examined the facts and concluded that the services indeed fell under Business Auxiliary Service and were liable for Service Tax. However, as the services were rendered to Financial Institutions, the use of the Financial Institutions' brand by the Service Provider was deemed irrelevant. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the services were not branded and thus eligible for the exemption under the aforementioned Notification. The matter was remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority for reevaluation of the Service Tax liability in light of the exemption.

Eligibility for Exemption under Notification No. 06/2005-ST:
The Tribunal's analysis found that the services provided by the appellants to Financial Institutions, falling under Business Auxiliary Service, were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01/03/2005. The Tribunal emphasized that the use of the Financial Institutions' brand by the Service Provider did not categorize the services as branded, thereby qualifying the appellants for the exemption. Consequently, all appeals were allowed through remand, directing the Original Adjudicating Authority to reevaluate and permit the exemption under the said Notification.

Remand of the Matter to the Original Adjudicating Authority:
In light of the findings regarding the interpretation of Business Auxiliary Service and eligibility for exemption, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Original Adjudicating Authority. This remand aimed to facilitate the allowance of the exemption under Notification No. 06/2005-ST dated 01/03/2005 and a reassessment of the Service Tax liability for the appellants. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter back to the Original Adjudicating Authority concluded the appeals by allowing them through remand, ensuring a reevaluation of the Service Tax liability in compliance with the exemption notification.

← Previous Next →