Business Auxiliary Service classification failed where facts were inconsistent and the precise statutory clause was not identified.

Service tax demand under Business Auxiliary Service could not be sustained where the impugned order proceeded on a factual basis inconsistent with the appellant's case and the record. The order treated the transactions as high seas sales and assumed the appellant was procuring goods for clients, while the appellant maintained that the documentation charges related to valves manufactured and supplied by it. The classification analysis was also incomplete because the specific clause of the Business Auxiliary Service definition was not clearly identified. The matter therefore required remand for fresh adjudication on the correct facts and the precise statutory basis for the demand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the demand of service tax under the head of Business Auxiliary Service could be sustained when the impugned order proceeded on an assumption inconsistent with the appellant's case and the record, and whether the matter required remand for fresh adjudication with identification of the precise clause of the definition invoked.

Analysis: The impugned order treated the transactions as high seas sales and proceeded on the footing that the appellant was procuring goods for its clients, while the appellant's case before the authorities was that the documentation charges related to valves manufactured and supplied by it. The record disclosed a contradiction between the factual basis adopted in the impugned order and the appellant's stated case. The order also did not clearly identify the specific clause under the definition of Business Auxiliary Service on which the demand was founded, which made the classification exercise incomplete.

Conclusion: The demand could not be upheld on the existing record and the matter was required to be remanded for fresh decision after clearly stating the facts and identifying the precise clause of Business Auxiliary Service relied upon.

---