TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... they have to coordinate with these companies in the advertisement, canvassing and that they have to identify prospective customers for lending based on predetermined criteria. Time limitation - Held that: - It has to be seen that appellants were discharging service tax under Banking and Financial Services and were filing regular returns - It is correct that there was confusion prior to 10.09.2004 as to whether all the services rendered on behalf of client would fall under BAS - when the appellant has written letter dated 29.10.2004 immediately, the fact has come to the knowledge of department and therefore in our view the SCN dated 02.05.2006 is time barred. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/243/2006 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and that appellants are liable to discharge service tax on BAS from 01.04.2004 to 09.09.2004. Show cause notice dt. 2.5.2006 was issued to the appellant, inter alia, proposing demand of ₹ 1,15,12,240/- along with interest and also for imposing penalties under various provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. After due process of adjudication, vide impugned order dt. 4.1.2006, Commissioner confirmed the said demand along with interest thereon and imposed equal penalty of ₹ 1,15,1240/- under Section 78 of the Act and also imposed penalty under Section 76 of the Act. Aggrieved, appellants are before this forum. 2. On 21.07.2017, when the matter came up for hearing, Ld. Advocate Shri S. Muthuvenkatraman submits that the show cause not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... activities of mobilization of deposit/debentures/delivering deposits/debenture receipts giving loans to commercial vehicles do not fall under the category of promotion or marketing of service, customer care service or incidental or auxiliary support services. Section 65(19)(i) has no application, since there is no goods involved which are promoted or marketed; 65(19)(ii) has no application since the appellant is not engaged in promoting or marketing the services of a client; Sec 65(19)(iii) is not applicable, since it refers to customer care services on behalf of an client. Sec 65(19)(iv), is only services incidental or auxiliary services. That on coming to know of the amendment, the appellant shad requested for consequent changes in the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in fact deliberately withheld the information from the department relating to the services provided on this account for the period from 1.1.2004 to 9.9.2004 and hence the extended period of limitation has been rightly invoked. 4. Heard both sides and gone through the facts. 5. The issue that comes up for appellate decision is whether the activities carried out by the appellant would fall under the scope of BAS under Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994 as it stood prior to 10.09.2004 before its amendment. Towards this end, it would be useful to appreciate the said section s it stood before and after its amendment. Prior to 10.09.2004, the definition of Business Auxiliary Service was as under : Business Auxiliary Service means ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustomer or vendor, public relation services, management or supervision, and includes services as a commission agent, but does not include any information technology service and any activity that amounts to manufacture within the meaning of clause (f) of section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944(1 of 1944). 6. The activities carried out by the appellant during the impugned period has been alleged by the department to be falling with Business Auxiliary Service even before its amendment for the following reasons : (i) Promotion or marketing of service, as SOFL accepts application forms from the investors applying for debentures / deposits of these companies and act in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of these companies in handling ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... From para-21 of the impugned order, it is seen that the adjudicating authority has found that the appellant accepted application forms from investors applied for debentures/deposits of their client and in a fiduciary capacity on behalf of those companies in handling the applications from the investors; that they have to coordinate with these companies in the advertisement, canvassing and that they have to identify prospective customers for lending based on predetermined criteria. It has to be seen that appellants were discharging service tax under Banking and Financial Services and were filing regular returns. The Learned Counsel has strongly argued on the ground of limitation. It is correct that there was confusion prior to 10.09.2004 as t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
