Co-op Society wins Service Tax case on trading charges & loans, not under Auctioneers' or Business Support Service.

The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, a Co-operative Society, in a Service Tax liability case. The appellant's activities, involving collecting trading charges for floating tenders and lending money to members, were found not to fall under "Auctioneers' Service" or "Business Support Service." The Tribunal noted similarities to a previous case where demands were not sustained, setting aside the demands and impugned orders, and allowing the appeals with consequential benefits.

---

---

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant's activities fall under "Auctioneers' Service" and "Business Support Service" for Service Tax liability.
2. Adjudication of Show Cause Notice for the period from 01.05.2006 to 31.03.2011.
3. Adjudication of Statement of Demand for the period from April 2011 to June 2012.

Issue 1:
The appellant, a Co-operative Society, faced a Show Cause Notice alleging its activities were covered under "Auctioneers' Service" and "Business Support Service" for Service Tax liability. The appellant contended that it only collected trading charges for floating tenders and lending money to members did not constitute supporting business service. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the proposals in the Show Cause Notice. The appellant appealed against the orders.

Issue 2:
The Adjudication of the Show Cause Notice for the period from 01.05.2006 to 31.03.2011 resulted in the rejection of the appellant's explanation by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem. The appellant appealed to the forum against this decision.

Issue 3:
The Adjudication of the Statement of Demand for the period from April 2011 to June 2012 led to the confirmation of the proposals made in the Statement of Demand. The First Appellate Authority upheld the Order-in-Original, prompting the appellant to file an appeal before the forum.

During the hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that the nature of auction alleged was not present as the appellant was not in the business of auctioning property but facilitating marketing of agricultural produce through tenders. The advocate relied on a previous Tribunal decision in a similar case to support this argument. The Revenue's representative supported the findings in the impugned orders. The Tribunal found the facts undisputed and noted that the appellant's activities were akin to those in a previous case where demands were not sustained. The Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, setting aside the demands and impugned orders, allowing the appeals with consequential benefits.

---