Appellant's service classification dispute resolved against 'Business Support Service', upholding Service Tax demand.

The appellant's argument for classifying their services under 'Business Support Service' was rejected in favor of categorizing them under 'Business Auxiliary Service' due to lack of evidence. The Tribunal upheld the demand for Service Tax, interest, and penalties, dismissing the appeal and finding that the appellant's services to banks constituted marketing services for facilitating loans. The exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 was denied based on the appellant's use of a brand name and failure to demonstrate compliance with the exemption limit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Classification of services provided by the appellant under Service Tax.
2. Applicability of Business Support Service classification.
3. Payment of Service Tax, interest, and penalties by the appellant.
4. Ex parte order request by the Tribunal on merits.
5. Exemption under Notification No. 6/2005.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with the classification of services provided by the appellant for arranging loans from banks under Service Tax. The appellant was considered a Direct Selling Agent of the bank, leading to a show cause notice demanding Service Tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service.' The Dy. Commissioner confirmed the demand in adjudication proceedings, which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Various judgments were cited to support that services provided by such agents are taxable under 'Banking or Financial Service' or 'Business Auxiliary Service.'

2. The appellant's argument that they provided only space to the bank and their service should be classified under 'Business Support Service' was rejected due to lack of evidence in the form of an agreement with the bank. The judgments of Chambal Motors and Auto World were referenced to establish that Service Tax is payable on the commission received from banks, and the service rendered falls under Business Auxiliary Service. The plea of time-barred demand was dismissed due to suppression of facts regarding commission receipt from the bank.

3. Although the appellant had paid the total amount of Service Tax, interest, and penalties, they requested an ex parte order by the Tribunal on merits. The Tribunal found that the appellant provided marketing services to banks by facilitating loans, and the argument for classification under 'Business Support Service' lacked evidential support, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

4. The issue of exemption under Notification No. 6/2005 was also addressed in the judgment. The Commissioner concluded that the appellant's use of a brand name disqualified them from the exemption. Additionally, there was no evidence to show that the total value of services provided by the appellant did not exceed the exemption limit, further supporting the dismissal of the appeal.

---