2017 (2) TMI 1373 - AT - Service Tax

Tribunal Upholds Decision on Service Tax Demand, Emphasizes Legal Precedent and Consistency

The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal against dropping the demand of service tax under the category of business auxiliary ... Whether the first appellate authority has come to correct conclusion that demand of service tax under the category of business auxiliary service needs to be dropped or otherwise? - Held that:- An identical issue decided in the case of DNYANESHWAR TRUST VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF C. EX., MUMBAI [2014 (1) TMI 90 - CESTAT MUMBAI], where it was held that the appellant is entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 13/2003-S.T., which provides exemption from payment of service tax in respect of service provided under “Business Auxiliary Service” in relation to the sale of agricultural products - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. Issues:Whether the demand of service tax under the category of business auxiliary service needs to be dropped or not.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the Revenue against Order-in-Appeal No: AV(249)189/2012 dated 03/12/2012 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Aurangabad. Despite notice, no one appeared for the respondent. The main issue in this case was whether the first appellate authority correctly concluded that the demand of service tax under the category of business auxiliary service should be dropped. It was highlighted that a similar issue involving the same respondent was already decided in their favor in a previous appeal. The first appellate authority relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the previous case to set aside the order-in-original. Based on the precedent and consistency in decisions, the Tribunal held that the impugned order was correct and legal, and thus, did not require any interference. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the appeal was rejected.This judgment showcases the importance of consistency in legal decisions and the significance of precedent in determining the outcome of similar cases. It also emphasizes the need for thorough analysis and reliance on established legal principles to ensure the correctness and legality of orders issued by appellate authorities.