Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (7) TMI 27 - CESTAT CHENNAIBusiness Auxiliary Services - appellants advised their customers to approach the HDFC for taking insurance policies for the vehicles - Department took the view that this activity of both the appellants are in the nature of promoting and marketing of insurance products and services provided by HDFC Chubb and would therefore fall under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ - Held that:- Based on that information, the appellants may not have actively promoted the insurance policies of HDFC Chubb. But in restricting their data base access only to HDFC Chubb, that too on real time basis and they enabled the latter to have access to a pool of new vehicle buyers who would obviously also need first time car insurance - appellants therefore promoted the business of HDFC Chubb and for which services they were given agreed upon payment for every car insured by HDFC Chubb. Also, the transactional documents and other evidences on record indicate a substantial activity falling within the contours of the definition of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ in Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994. Penalty - Held that:- The issue per se was mired in confusion and litigation - appellants had a reasonable cause for their failure to discharge tax liability and must be given the benefit of doubt - penalty set aside. Appeal allowed in part.
|