TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f support service of business or commerce, which became to be taxed only w.e.f. 1-5-2006; that therefore there cannot be any confirmation of service tax on the assessee under Business Auxiliary Services prior to this period - matter remanded to the original authority for denovo consideration - ST/597/2008 - A/30109/2018 - Dated:- 22-1-2018 - Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member(Technical) Shri Dass Thavanam, Superintendent/AR - for the Appellant. Shri B. Seetharamayya, Advocate - for the Respondent. Order Per: Madhu Mohan Damodhar] 1. The brief facts of the case are that M/s Vasant Financial Links, (hereinafter referred to as 'assessee'/respondent) are providing certain s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ass Thavanam, Superintendent reiterated the grounds of appeal and also made oral submissions, which can be summarised as under: 2.1 The definition of business auxiliary service in section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 upto 09.09.2004 also covered incidental or auxiliary service such as evaluation of prospective customer . 2.2 Even after the definition was amended in 10-09-2004, as per sub clause (vii), any service incidental or auxiliary but not activity specified in sub clauses (i) to (vi), inter-alia evaluation or development of prospective customer or vendor were also coming under the said taxable service. 2.3 Definition of business support service was in section 65 (104 C) of the Act also includes evaluation of p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... auxiliary service only and not under business support service and had accordingly inter-alia, proposed demand of tax liability of ₹ 11 and Ed. Cess of ₹ 15,012/- with interest thereon. The original authority in his order dated 13.03.2008 has restricted the demand to ₹ 10,43,402/- towards service tax and ₹ 13,544/- towards Education Cess, after giving cum-duty benefit. However, in the order portion, it appears that the original authority has inadvertently shown the period as 01-07-2003 to 31-03-2005, instead of 01-07-2003 to 30-11-2006 for which proceedings have been initiated in the show cause notice. We further find that while the original authority and lower appellate authority have referred to agreements by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
