2009 (6) TMI 206 - AT - Service Tax

Appellants herein availed services found to be classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service rendered by commission agents based abroad who canvassed and procured purchase orders for the appellants finished goods - the appellants submits that if the service tax demanded is paid they would obtain instant credit of the same and that the demand involves a revenue neutral situation. It is also submitted that the services being rendered abroad is not exigible to service tax - we are of the prima facie view that the impugned demand is sustainable - in view of the fact that the demand entails a revenue neutral situation stay is granted

Summary

Issues:
Classification of services under Business Auxiliary Service, liability under reverse charge mechanism, applicability of service tax on services rendered abroad.

Analysis:
The case involved the classification of services under Business Auxiliary Service provided by commission agents based abroad who procured purchase orders for the appellants' goods. The impugned order upheld the demand of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,72,000 under the reverse charge mechanism for the period from 18-4-2006 to 31-1-2007, along with interest. The Commissioner (Appeals) also upheld penalties under Sections 76, 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, and an additional penalty under Section 77. The appellants argued for waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery, claiming a revenue-neutral situation upon payment of the demanded service tax, contending that services rendered abroad are not subject to service tax and that the services in question do not fall under Business Auxiliary Service.

Upon hearing the arguments, the Tribunal was of the prima facie view that the demand was legally sustainable. However, considering the revenue-neutral nature of the demand, the Tribunal ordered the waiver of pre-deposit of the adjudged dues pending the appeal's disposal. The decision was made after a careful examination of the facts and submissions from both parties. The Tribunal's ruling allowed the appellants to avoid immediate payment while the appeal was pending, acknowledging the revenue-neutral aspect of the demand. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court, ensuring transparency and adherence to legal procedures.