2010 (6) TMI 179

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ugned demand was raised in a show-cause notice dated 29.9.05 which invoked the extended period of limitation on the alleged ground of suppression of facts by the appellant. The demand is under the head 'Business Auxiliary Service' falling under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. During the period 'Business Auxiliary Service' stood defined as under: "Business auxiliary service' means any service in relation to:- (i) production or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided or belonging to the client; or (ii) promotion or marketing of service provided by the client; or (iii) any customer care service provided on behalf of the client; or (iv) any incidental or auxiliary support service such as billing, collection or recovery of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sessees from the NCC, whereupon the appellant would print PAN cards having hologram and other security features and colour photograph of applicants as per design approved by the department. The applicant shall subsequently dispatch the printed PAN card with a forwarding letter to the PAN applicant through courier or other suitable mode. Under the above contract, it was up to the appellant to arrange facilities for establishing independent separate PAN service centers and for transferring the PAN applications to data entry/allotment centers, set up necessary data communication links between the centers, server and the NCC and the Income Tax department. All expenditure incurred by the appellant for these purposes would be recovered and receiv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....h as Commissioner vs. CMC Ltd. 2007 (7) STR 702 (Tri-Bang). In the context of his submission that the job undertaken by the appellant was not 'incidental' or 'auxiliary' to any of the preceding services under section 65(19) of the Act, the learned counsel has claimed support from the decision in Gandhi and Gandhi Chartered Accountants vs. Commissioner 2010 (17) STR 25 (Tri-Bang). 5. He has also pleaded time-bar against the demand of service tax. It is submitted that nothing was suppressed before the department and that, after the amendment (10.09.2004) of section 65(19), the appellant is paying service tax on the same service. The issue is one involving interpretation of the provisions of section 65(19) and therefore it was not justifiable....