Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 1239 - AT - Service TaxClassification of services - Business Auxiliary services or not - appellant was acting as a marketing agent for several banks and financial institutions who are engaged in the business of car finance - HELD THAT:- The matter in its entirety is no longer res integra as it has been already been decided by this Tribunal in the case of BRIJ MOTORS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR [2011 (11) TMI 410 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] that the activity undertaken by the appellant as mentioned in the preceding paragraph is covered by the definition given under section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994 and is appropriately classifiable under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ - This Tribunal has taken a similar view in the case of VED AUTOMOTIVES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KANPUR [2016 (11) TMI 836 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] whereunder it has been held by this Tribunal that the activity akin to the one taken by the appellant is rightly classifiable under service category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’. Thus, the activity undertaken by the appellant is rightly classifiable under ‘Business Auxiliary Service’. Penalty u/s 78 of FA - HELD THAT:- The appellant had deposited the entire amount of Service Tax demanded under the Show cause notice dated 30 November, 2006 along with interest much before the issue of show cause notice. Secondly, there was a certain amount of confusion at the field level for proper classification of activity undertaken by the appellant as to whether it is classifiable under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’ or under ‘Business Support Service’ and since there have been multiplicity of interpretation with regard to the applicability of service tax law in the nature of activity undertaken by the appellant, the issue of imposition of penalty under section 78 of Finance Act is not warranted - the imposition of penalty under section 78 in this case is not justified. The confirmation of Service Tax demand is justified but the imposition of penalty under section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is set aside - appeal allowed in part.
|