TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 233X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to any person did not fall within the ambit of 'Business Auxiliary Service'. It is brought out from the records that appellant company is a registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act as a non-profit organization and therefore cannot be considered as commercial concern. The Tribunal in the case of Raja Charity Trust [2017 (2) TMI 387 - CESTAT CHENNAI] had an occasion to analyze a similar i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed the demand along with interest and also imposed equal penalty. Being aggrieved, the appellant is now before the Tribunal. 2. On behalf of the appellant, Ld. counsel Ms. Cyunduja Crishan argued the matter on the instructions of Shri J. Shankarraman, Ld. Advocate. She submitted that the appellant-company is registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956 as a non-profit organizat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncern by the word any person . As the period involved in the present case is from 1.7.2003 to 30.4.2006, the appellant would not fall within the definition of 'Business Auxiliary Service' and therefore the demand is unsustainable. She relies on the Tribunal's decision in the case of Raja Charity Trust Vs CCE ST Tirunelveli - 2017(4) G.S.TL. 77 (Tri.-Chennai). 3. The Ld. A.R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... substitution of the term commercial concern providing BAS Service to the fold of taxation. Such amending entry read as under :- (zzb) to a client, by any person in relation to business auxiliary service Emphasis supplied] Thus it is seen prior to 1.5.2006, the services rendered to a client by a commercial concern would only qualify as BAS. The services rendered to any person did not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
