Tribunal rules in favor of appellant, setting aside demand for 'Business Auxiliary Service' and finding second period demand time-barred.

The Tribunal set aside the demand under 'Business Auxiliary Service' for both periods and held the demand for the second period as barred by limitation. The decision was based on settled legal principles and precedents, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

---

---

Issues Involved:
Appeal against demand under 'Business Auxiliary Service' confirmed by Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore for two periods - April 2007 to March 2008 and April 2004 to March 2005. Appellant contests demand under 'Business Auxiliary Services' only.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Demand under 'Business Auxiliary Service'
- Facts: Appellants operated buses and booked bus tickets for other transport operators for a commission. Commissioner demanded service tax under 'Business Auxiliary Service' for the periods in question.
- Appellant's Argument: Impugned order not sustainable as it did not appreciate the definition of 'Business Auxiliary Service' properly. Appellant cited precedents where similar issues were decided in favor of the assessee.
- Department's Response: Reiterated findings of the impugned order.
- Decision: Tribunal found the issue settled in favor of the assessee by the High Court of Kerala in a similar case. High Court held that the appellant was engaged in travel agency business, not 'Business Auxiliary Service.' Tribunal set aside the demand under 'Business Auxiliary Service' as unsustainable in law.

Issue 2: Limitation for Demand
- Appellant's Argument: Entire demand for the second period was barred by limitation as the show-cause notice was issued after a significant delay.
- Decision: Tribunal agreed with the appellant, citing precedents where demands based on pure interpretation were not sustainable under extended periods of limitation. Quoted decisions supported setting aside the demand due to the delay in issuing the notice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal set aside the demand under 'Business Auxiliary Service' for both periods and also held the demand for the second period as barred by limitation. The decision was based on settled legal principles and precedents, providing consequential relief to the appellant.

---