Business Auxiliary Service classification upheld, penalty denied for debatable levy, and exemption claim remanded for verification.

Multi level marketing was held classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service and liable to service tax, following earlier Tribunal authority, so the tax demand was sustained. Penalty was set aside because the levy position had been genuinely debatable, departmental views were conflicting, and no suppression or mala fide intent could be attributed. The claim for small scale exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 was raised for the first time and required factual verification, so the exemption issue was remanded to the adjudicating authority for examination of eligibility and fresh quantification if needed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the activity of multi level marketing was classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service and liable to service tax, and whether penalty was warranted; (ii) whether the appellant was entitled to small scale exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 dated 01.03.2005, requiring verification and quantification by the adjudicating authority.

Issue (i): whether the activity of multi level marketing was classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service and liable to service tax, and whether penalty was warranted.

Analysis: The issue on taxability was treated as settled by earlier Tribunal authority holding such services to be classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service and liable to service tax. On penalty, the Tribunal applied the same reasoning that had led it to hold the extended period inapplicable in the earlier matter, namely that the issue was not free from doubt, departmental views were conflicting, and the legal position was unsettled. In that situation, no mala fides or suppression could be attributed so as to justify penal action.

Conclusion: The service tax liability was upheld, but the penalty was set aside in favour of the assessee.

Issue (ii): whether the appellant was entitled to small scale exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 dated 01.03.2005, requiring verification and quantification by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis: The claim of reduced clearance value was raised for the first time and needed factual verification. The Tribunal therefore considered it appropriate to remit the matter to the original adjudicating authority to examine eligibility for the exemption and, if necessary, quantify the tax liability.

Conclusion: The exemption plea was remanded for verification and fresh determination in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The service tax demand was left undisturbed, the penalties were annulled, and the exemption claim was sent back for factual examination and fresh quantification.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the levy position is already settled but the issue was genuinely debatable and departmental views were divergent, penalty cannot be sustained in the absence of suppression or mala fide intent; an unverified exemption claim may be remanded for factual determination.

---