2013 (12) TMI 620 - AT - Service Tax

Classification of Service under Business Auxiliary Service Prevails over Re-conditioning Argument

The court held that the service provided by the appellants was classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service, setting aside the Order-in-Original and ... Demand of service tax - Classification of service - Re-rubberisation of old, worn out rubberised rollers - Whether this service is classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service - Held that:- appellants are receiving worn out rubber rollers from various customers - activities at various stages are nothing but various processes undertaken by them on goods received by them - activities are covered under clause V of the Business Auxiliary Services as these are processing of goods on behalf of the client. We therefore hold these activities can be classified under Business Auxiliary Service - appellants are equally classifiable under two services namely Business Auxiliary Service and Maintenance or Repair service. Since the service can not be classified under clause 'a' and 'b' of Section 65 A, clause 'c' of Section 65A is attracted according to which service is classifiable under the sub-clause of clause 105 of Section 65 which comes first. We find that Business Auxiliary service is covered under Section 65 (105) (zzb) and Management, Maintenance or Repair Service is covered under clause 65(105) (zzr). Since Business Auxiliary Service comes first under Clause 65(105) (zzb), we hold that service is classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Classification of service under Business Auxiliary Service or Management, Maintenance or Repair Service.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Classification of service under Business Auxiliary Service or Management, Maintenance or Repair ServiceFacts: The appeal was filed against the Order-in-Original by M/s Zenith Rollers Ltd. for not discharging service tax liability on re-rubberisation of rollers. The Department claimed it fell under Management, Maintenance, or Repair Service, not Business Auxiliary Service.Appellant's Argument: The appellants argued that re-rubberisation falls under Business Auxiliary Service as it involves processing goods for clients. They paid service tax under this category and claimed exemption under Notification No. 14/2005 for specific industries.Revenue's Argument: The revenue contended that re-rubberisation amounts to re-conditioning, falling under Management, Maintenance, or Repair Service. They cited the Tribunal's decision on similar cases and denied the benefit of Notification 12/2003 due to lack of evidence of sales tax payment.Court's Finding: The court noted the activities involved in re-rubberisation and found them to be processes on goods received from clients, falling under Business Auxiliary Service. However, the Revenue argued that re-rubberisation amounted to re-conditioning, which aligns with Management, Maintenance, or Repair Service.Legal Analysis: The court applied Section 65A, which states that when a service is classifiable under multiple categories, the most specific description should be preferred. Since the service could not be classified under specific clauses, it was classified under the sub-clause that comes first. Business Auxiliary Service was classified under Section 65(105)(zzb), which precedes Management, Maintenance, or Repair Service under Section 65(105)(zzr).Conclusion: The court held that the service provided by the appellants was classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service, setting aside the Order-in-Original and allowing the appeal.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, including the arguments presented by both parties and the court's reasoning leading to the final decision.