2018 (4) TMI 962 - AT - Service Tax

Time Limitation - Business Auxiliary Service - whether the activity of multilevel marketing should fall under the taxable category of Business Auxiliary Service? - Held that - the issue as to whether the activity of multilevel marketing should fall under the taxable category of Business Auxiliary Service was highly contentious and the issue was finally resolved - Since the issue relates to interpretation of the taxability of service the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for confirmation of the service tax demand. In this case since the show cause notice was issued beyond the normal period of limitation the same is barred by limitation of time - demand do not sustain - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax for the services provided prior to a specific date.
2. Whether the proceedings are barred by the limitation of time.
3. Whether the activity of multilevel marketing falls under the taxable category of Business Auxiliary Service.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, providing multilevel marketing services, was subjected to a Service Tax demand for the period November 2004 to March 2009. The adjudication order confirmed a demand of &8377; 6,70,958/- against the appellant, with a portion dropped. The Revenue appealed for the dropped amount, leading to the impugned order modifying the demand to &8377; 8,55,443/-. The appellant contested the modification, citing the issue of taxability under Business Auxiliary Service. The Tribunal considered the issue and concluded that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked for the demand confirmation related to services provided before a specific date. Therefore, the Service Tax demand of &8377; 1,01,983/- confirmed in the impugned order was held unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed in favor of the appellant.

2. The appellant argued that the proceedings were time-barred as the show cause notice seeking confirmation of the Service Tax demand for the period before 18.04.2006 was issued beyond the normal limitation period. The Tribunal agreed, stating that since the notice was issued beyond the normal limitation period, it was barred by time limitation. Consequently, the Service Tax demand of &8377; 1,01,983/- confirmed in the impugned order could not be upheld, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

3. The contentious issue of whether multilevel marketing activities should be categorized under Business Auxiliary Service was resolved by the Tribunal in a previous case. The Tribunal held that since the issue pertains to the interpretation of the taxability of services, the extended period of limitation cannot be applied for confirming the Service Tax demand. Therefore, the Tribunal found no merit in confirming the Service Tax demand against the appellant and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal in part regarding the service tax amount of &8377; 1,01,983/-.

This detailed analysis of the judgment provides a comprehensive understanding of the issues involved and the Tribunal's decision on each issue.