2019 (3) TMI 1393 - AT - Service Tax

Appellants cleared of auctioneering services, tax demand dismissed.

The Tribunal found that the appellants' activity of providing Storage and Warehousing Services and selling products did not constitute Auctioneering ... Classification of services - Auctioneering Services or not - appellants are providing Storage and Warehousing Services and are selling the products on behalf of starch and sago manufacturers by issue of tenders - Held that:- The issue is decided in the case of M/S. THE SALEM STARCH & SAGO MANUFACTURERS SERVICE INDUSTRIAL CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. VERSUS CCE & ST, SALEM [2018 (3) TMI 192 - CESTAT CHENNAI], where it was held that although the authority has reasoned that the appellants have performed the services of providing facility for easy interaction between the manufacturers and the merchants, provided short term services and have also been involved in the pre-auction price estimation, however, no evidence is forth coming to substantiate such a finding. Demand cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. Issues:Interpretation of whether the activity of providing Storage and Warehousing Services and selling products on behalf of manufacturers falls under Auctioneering Services.Analysis:The case involved a dispute regarding the classification of the appellants' activity of providing Storage and Warehousing Services and selling products on behalf of manufacturers. The department contended that the activity should be categorized as Auctioneering Services, leading to the issuance of a show-cause notice for service tax, interest, and penalties. The adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this view, resulting in the appeals before the Tribunal.During the hearing, the appellants' counsel referred to a previous decision of the Tribunal which discussed the distinction between auction and tender processes. The Tribunal in the earlier case emphasized that an auction involves a live process with transparent bidding, allowing multiple bids to enhance the price. On the other hand, a tender process only permits a single bid per bidder, concluding at a set time without the competitive bidding characteristic of an auction. The Tribunal highlighted that auctioneering involves additional services beyond the bidding process, such as facility provision, advertising, and pre-auction estimates, leading to the specific classification of Auction of Property Service by the legislature.Applying the principles outlined in the previous decision, the current Tribunal found that the lower authority erred in equating the definitions of tender and auction. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence supporting the lower authority's conclusion that the appellants provided services like facilitating interaction between manufacturers and merchants, short term services, and pre-auction price estimation. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the demand for service tax could not be sustained and set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeals with any consequential reliefs.In conclusion, the Tribunal's analysis focused on the distinction between auction and tender processes, emphasizing the unique characteristics and additional services associated with auctioneering activities. The decision highlighted the necessity of evidence to support classification and ultimately ruled in favor of the appellants based on the principles established in a prior Tribunal decision.