2019 (12) TMI 1660 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of service tax - Auctioneers Service - conducting auction of goods and property on consideration for which trading charges handling and incidental expenses and appraising charges were collected - Business Support Service - activity relating to pledging of jewellery - HELD THAT - The Show Cause Notice carries the explanation through statement of one of the office bearers of the appellant-society wherein he has inter alia stated that their objective was facilitating the marketing of agricultural produce to its members at a remunerative price arranging for and undertaking of purchase storing processing and marketing of the agricultural and other produce or products of its members or of the society to the best advantage ; that normally members would bring their produces to the society for auction on the scheduled date and on receipt of produces they are given a receipt with identification lot number; that the same are stacked/stored in the auction yard etc. The very same activities were carried on by the assessee in the case of M/s. Attur Agricultural Producers 2019 (8) TMI 262 - CESTAT CHENNAI relied on by the Learned Advocate for the assessee wherein after considering various arguments this Bench has held that the demands on the above counts were not sustainable - the above ruling would apply squarely to the present case as well. The impugned orders set aside - appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant's activities fall under "Auctioneers' Service" and "Business Support Service" for Service Tax liability.
2. Adjudication of Show Cause Notice for the period from 01.05.2006 to 31.03.2011.
3. Adjudication of Statement of Demand for the period from April 2011 to June 2012.

Issue 1:
The appellant, a Co-operative Society, faced a Show Cause Notice alleging its activities were covered under "Auctioneers' Service" and "Business Support Service" for Service Tax liability. The appellant contended that it only collected trading charges for floating tenders and lending money to members did not constitute supporting business service. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the proposals in the Show Cause Notice. The appellant appealed against the orders.

Issue 2:
The Adjudication of the Show Cause Notice for the period from 01.05.2006 to 31.03.2011 resulted in the rejection of the appellant's explanation by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem. The appellant appealed to the forum against this decision.

Issue 3:
The Adjudication of the Statement of Demand for the period from April 2011 to June 2012 led to the confirmation of the proposals made in the Statement of Demand. The First Appellate Authority upheld the Order-in-Original, prompting the appellant to file an appeal before the forum.

During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that the nature of auction alleged was not present as the appellant was not in the business of auctioning property but facilitating marketing of agricultural produce through tenders. The advocate relied on a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case to support this argument. The Revenue's representative supported the findings in the impugned orders. The Tribunal found the facts undisputed and noted that the appellant's activities were akin to those in a previous case where demands were not sustained. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demands and impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential benefits.