Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (8) TMI 320

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ovided for under section 65(19) of the Finance Act 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). It is on the basis of the records, including the ledger maintained and provided by the appellant to the officers of the audit, that the Show Cause Notice further mentions - "(i) That the noticee showed "Misc. income on Technical Fee" which is under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and received Service charges from service recipients for the years 2004-05,2005-06, and 2006-07 on this count. The details of receipts made by the notice are as below:- Financial Year Amount Received Rate Service Tax Ed. Cess @ 2% 2004-05 Rs. 671279 10% Rs. 67128 Rs. 1343 2005-06 Rs. 1497123 10% Rs. 149712 Rs. 2994 2006-07 Rs. 1777930 12% Rs. 213352 Rs. 4267   Rs. 3946332   Rs. 430192 Rs. 8604 Whereas it appears that the amount of service charges as indicated in the table above received on account of Technical Fees attracted Service Tax on such services w.e.f. 01.07.2003. Therefore, the noticee is liable to pay the Service Tax amounting to Rs. 4,30,192/- (S. Tax)+Rs. 8,604/- (Ed. Cess) for the period 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 detailed above. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 5 10% Rs. 408453 Rs. 8169 - 2006-07 Rs. 8421574 12% Rs. 1010589 Rs. 20212 - 2007-08 Rs. 14192211 12% Rs. 1703065 Rs. 34061 17031   Rs. 27937204   Rs. 3245996 Rs. 64920 17031 From the table above, it transpires that the noticee are liable to pay service tax of Rs. 33,27,947/- on the value of commission charged by them. (v) Whereas it was further revealed that the noticee has received Rs. 1,61,400/- Rs. 5,500/- and Rs, 97,600/- for the periods 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 respectively against 'Income from Seminar'. The said income from Seminar was earned by the service recipient on account of "Training provided to them". Such, Training/seminar falls under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service" and attract service tax w.e.f. 01.07.2003, as detailed below:- Financial Year Amount Received Rate Service Tax Ed. Cess @ 2% 2004-05 Rs. 161400 10% Rs. 16140 Rs. 323 2005-06 Rs. 5500 10% Rs. 550 Rs. 11 2006-07 Rs. 97600 12% Rs. 11712 Rs. 234   Rs. 264500   Rs. 28402 Rs. 568 From the table above, it transpires that the noticee are liable to pay service tax of Rs. 28,970/- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o levy service tax under the category of 'business auxiliary service' is vague as it has failed to disclose the clause in the definition of 'business auxiliary service' under which the activities undertaken by us are covered. B.2 The Notice further submits that the burden of proof to establish that the activities undertaken by the Noticee are covered under 'business auxiliary service' lies on the Revenue. A perusal of the SCN clearly shows that the Revenue Department has not assigned any reason as to why the amounts paid and received by the Noticee are covered by 'business auxiliary service'. B.3 In this regard the Noticee places reliance on the following case laws: (1) Heveacrumb Rubber (P) Ltd. v. Supdt. Of Central Excise [1983 (14) ELT 1685 (Kar.)] (2) Vairavan Thandal v. Appellate Collector of Cus., Madras. [2000 (125) ELT 94 (Mad.)] (3) Auto Viso Corporation v. Collector of Customs [1992 (53) ELT 3] B.4 Based on the above reasons, it is submitted that the SCN is vague because it failed to disclose the reason as to why the activities undertaken by the Noticee are covered under 'business auxiliary service'. Such vagueness in the SCN is fatal to the proceedings and th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ervice Tax w.e.f. 1 July 2003, but the appellant did not pay the Service Tax. (v) The appellant received an amount of Rs. 2,64,500/- against, income from seminar earned by the appellant on account of "training provided" which would fall under the category of BAS and attract Service Tax, but it was not paid. 10. BAS has been defined in section 65(19) of the Act as follows:- "65 (19) "business auxiliary service" means any service in relation to - (i) promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client; or (ii) promotion or marketing of service provided by the client; or (iii) any customer care service provided on behalf of the client; or (iv) procurement of goods or services, which are inputs for the client; or Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that for the purposes of this sub-clause, "inputs" means all goods or services intended for use by the client; (v) production or processing of goods for, or on behalf of, the client; (vi) provision of service on behalf of the client; or (vii) a service incidental or auxiliary to any activity specified in sub-clauses (i) to (vi), such as billing, issue or .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ds without recording any finding as to why the demand of Service Tax was justified. The appellate order does not deal with this objection of the appellant. 14. In Commissioner of C.Ex., Bangalore, the Supreme Court observed that the Show Cause Notice is the foundation on which the department has to build up its case and if the allegations in the Show Cause Notice are not specific and on the contrary are vague and lack details, it would be sufficient to hold that the noticee was not given proper opportunity to meet the allegations. The relevant paragraphs are quoted below:- "9. We find that in the show cause notice there was nothing specific as to the role of the respondents, if any. The arrangements as alleged have not been shown to be within the knowledge or at the behest or with the connivance of the respondents. Independent arrangements were entered into by the respondents with the franchise holder. On a perusal of the show cause notice the stand of the respondents clearly gets established. 10. There is no allegation of the respondents being parties to any arrangement. In any event, no material in that regard was placed on record. The show cause notice are not specific and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates