TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (4) TMI 646
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nancial Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as SIFCL). On the demand raised, interest was also levied under Section 75 of Finance Act, 1994. So also there was levy of penalty under Section 76 of the said Act which is equal to the amount of service tax demanded above. Added to that, penalty of Rs. 1,000/- was imposed under Section 77 of the said Act. A penalty of Rs. 80,99,58,723/- was also imposed under Section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 2. Ld. Adjudicating Authority examined the agreement between the appellant and SIFCL which is a non banking company making investment of the deposit under directives of Reserve Bank ofIndia. Saving schemes were floated by SIFCL and finding that the appellant had facilities and infrastructure to pr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sions of Finance Act, 1994. 4. The issues framed as above were decided by the ld. Adjudicating Authority in terms of paras 19 to 23 of OIO appearing at page 23 to 39. While examining the issues before him, pleadings of the appellant were also considered by ld. Adjudicating Authority. Crucial question being whether service provided by the appellant was falling under the category of "Business Auxiliary Services", the authority below also tested the facts of the appellant in terms of law prevailing for the periods1-7-2003to17-4-2006,18-4-2006to30-7-2006,1-7-2003to9-9-2004and10-9-2004to16-6-2006. In para 22 of OIO, she found that there was active involvement of the appellant to fulfil the objects of the agreement by its employees for gett....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egistration under Finance Act, 1994, held that no eligibility to the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 arose. No material evidence was produced for consideration of plea of Cenvat Credit of Input service nor was there any compliance to avail such benefit. Therefore learned Adjudicating Authority held that Cenvat credit benefit was deniable. 8. The claim of reimbursement of expenses not liable to tax was dealt by ld. Adjudicating Authority in para 22.3 of OIO. Finding no documentary evidence for supporting such claim that was disallowed and the claim formed part of taxable service. 9. So far as penalties levied were concerned, ld. Adjudicating Authority examined the issue thoroughly in para 23 of OIO and came to the conclusion that the p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice taxable under Clause (iv) of definition. (C) The services provided by the Appellant are not taxable under clause (iv) of the definition of the term "Business Auxiliary Services" even after10-9-2004as per definition contained in Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994. The provision of service on behalf of the client is taxable under this category if the service is provided on behalf of the client. There was no relationship of client and service provider between the appellant and M/s. SIFCL. (D) Demand was time barred and extended period cannot be invoked if there is bona fide belief for non-payment of service tax. (E) The appellants rely upon the following judgments : (i) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ervices provided was found to be of the category of "business auxiliary services" during different relevant periods. Thread bare examination was made in para 20.1 to 22.1 of OIO demonstrating that the fact of promoting business of the SIFCL by the appellant was of the nature of "business auxiliary services". Ld. Adjudicating Authority had taken into consideration the judicial pronouncements in respect of category of services provided and came to the conclusion that the appellant provided "business auxiliary services". 15. We have depicted the manner of examination done by ld. Commissioner hereinbefore and prima facie of the opinion that the appellant shall be required to make pre-deposit for hearing of its appeal when entire pleading ....