9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (9) TMI 657 - AT - Service TaxBusiness Auxiliary Services - appellant is providing table space to the banks and financial institutions for sell of their loan products for which the appellant is getting incentive - Held that - The appellant have deposited the service tax suo-moto under the head Business Support Service, for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2008 which is not being contested by the appellant. Therefore, we are not going into the merits of the case and the demand for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2008, as has been paid by the appellant along with interest, the same is upheld. Demand for the period 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2006 - Extended period of limitation - Held that - As the issue was not free from doubts as there were conflicting decisions and the issue was finally decided by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pagariya Auto Center 2014 (2) TMI 98 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) , the demand for the period 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2006 is set aside on the ground of limitation. Appeal allowed in part.
Issues: Liability to pay service tax on commission received from banks and financial institutions under Business Auxiliary Service; Applicability of Business Support Service; Validity of demand for the period 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2006; Imposition of penalty.
Analysis: 1. Liability to pay service tax on commission under Business Auxiliary Service: The appellant, an authorized dealer providing table space to banks and financial institutions for selling loan products, received incentives. The department contended that the commission received falls under Business Auxiliary Service, thus attracting service tax liability. The consultant for the appellant argued that their service does not fall under this category as they merely provide space for customer interaction with banks directly. Citing the case of Pagariya Auto Center, it was emphasized that providing space alone does not constitute Business Auxiliary Service. The consultant also pointed out that the appellant had already paid service tax under Business Support Service for the period 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2008, which was not disputed. 2. Applicability of Business Support Service: The appellant had already discharged the service tax liability under Business Support Service for the period mentioned above. This fact was not contested, leading the Tribunal to uphold the payment made by the appellant during this period. Therefore, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of the case for this period. 3. Validity of demand for the period 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2006: For the demand pertaining to the period 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2006, falling within the extended period of limitation, the Tribunal acknowledged the existence of conflicting decisions on the issue. Referring to the decision in the case of Pagariya Auto Center, the Tribunal set aside the demand for this period on the grounds of limitation. Consequently, the penalties imposed on the appellant were also annulled, as the issue was not free from doubts. 4. Imposition of penalty: Due to the doubts surrounding the issue and the conflicting decisions, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the penalties imposed. The Tribunal's decision was based on the lack of clarity and the final resolution of the matter by the Larger Bench in a relevant case. In conclusion, the Tribunal modified the order-in-appeal, partially allowing the appeal based on the detailed analysis and findings presented.
|
