Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (6) TMI 1004 - AT - Service TaxTime Limitation - Business Auxiliary Services - appellant are working as Direct Selling Agents (DSA) for marketing of auto loan products of HDFC Bank for which the appellant received commission/incentive to the extent of 5% of the loan amount - N/N. 14/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 - suppression of facts/malafide intent not present - Held that:- There was reasonable confusion about the category of service whether the said service of the appellant falls under "Business Auxiliary Services" or “Business Support Services”. The issue has been dealt by Board in the Circular no. 87/05/2006-ST dated 06.11.2006, wherein it was clarified that the service provided by HDFC Bank is classifiable as "Business Auxiliary Services" and liable to payment of Service Tax - In this undisputed fact it cannot be said that the appellant had any malafide intention or any suppression on their part. The appellant’s entire service provided to HDFC Bank and all the transactions are recorded in Books of account of appellant as well as in the Books of HDFC Bank. The demand was raised on the basis of such recorded transaction in Books of account, therefore it cannot be said that the appellant has suppressed any material fact with intention to evade payment of Service Tax. The identical facts regarding the limitation was involved in the case of Addis Marketing [2016 (11) TMI 19 - CESTAT MUMBAI], wherein this Tribunal has categorically held that the extended period of limitation cannot be invoked. In the present case the period involved is 10.07.2003 to 31.03.2006, whereas the show-cause notice was issued on 08.10.2007 i.e. after stipulated normal period of one year, therefore the entire demand is hit by limitation - demand not sustainable on the ground of time bar - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|