2012 (2) TMI 299 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, waives penalties under Sections 76 & 78, confirms penalty under Section 77.

The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant by waiving penalties under Sections 76 and 78 but confirming the penalty under ... Business auxiliary service - Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994 – marketing efforts - appellant promoted business of ICICI Bank providing the services of processing of loan application for commercial vehicle which resulted in promotion of business of the bank as well as the vehicle seller – Held that:- The nature of activity carried out falls within the ambit of Business Auxiliary Service. Further, Appellate order does not demonstrate any mala fide of the assessee to bring it to the fold of penalty u/s 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. However penalty u/s 77 is confirmed – Decided partly in favor of assessee. Issues:1. Nature of activity carried out by the appellant2. Classification of the activity under Business Auxiliary Service3. Tax liability, penalty, and interest imposed on the appellant4. Penalty under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994Analysis:1. The judgment focused on the nature of the activity carried out by the appellant, which was to promote the business of ICICI Bank by providing services for processing loan applications for commercial vehicles. The Revenue argued that these activities fell under the category of Business Auxiliary Service as defined by Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.2. The Tribunal examined the arguments presented by the Revenue and concluded that the activity indeed fell within the ambit of Business Auxiliary Service. As a result, the appellant was held liable for the service tax, penalty, and interest imposed on them.3. Regarding the penalty aspect, the Tribunal noted that there was no demonstration of any mala fide intent on the part of the appellant to warrant penalties under Sections 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, the penalties under these sections were waived.4. However, the Tribunal confirmed the penalty of Rs. 1000 imposed under Section 77, stating that when the liability commenced, such a penalty became imposable. Additionally, any interest realizable against the service tax demand was deemed payable.5. In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant by waiving penalties under Sections 76 and 78 but confirming the penalty under Section 77. The decision highlighted the importance of correctly classifying activities under relevant service categories to determine tax liabilities accurately.