Appellants required to pre-deposit 20% of service tax, waiver for balance pending appealLevy of service tax - levy under the category of business auxiliary service - goods were not dealt by the present appellants. But they get consideration for service provided to boost the sales of the aforesaid principal who compensated the appellant by way of commission. - Held that:- demand are very small in nature and there is a difference in judgement by the revenue, pre-deposit of 20 per cent of the service tax demanded, predeposit of balance demand shall be waived till the disposal of appea... ... ... Issues:
1. Levy of service tax on appellants for business auxiliary service.
2. Challenge to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the classification of the appellants as commission agents.
3. Determination of whether the service provided by the appellants constitutes business auxiliary service.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Levy of service tax on appellants for business auxiliary service
The counsel vehemently opposed the levy of service tax on the appellants, arguing that they did not deal with the commodity or execute any agreement with the company in question. The appellants merely enlisted consumers and, therefore, should not be considered as providing business auxiliary service. The contention was that since the appellants did not directly deal with the commodity or enter into agreements, they should not be held liable for service tax under the category of business auxiliary service.

Issue 2: Challenge to the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals)
The counsel also challenged the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds that the appellants were incorrectly classified as commission agents. It was argued that the appellants did not fall under the specific definition of a commission agent as per section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994. This challenge was based on the interpretation of the legal definition of a commission agent and whether the appellants met the criteria outlined in the relevant legislation.

Issue 3: Determination of the nature of the service provided by the appellants
The revenue contended that the service provided by the appellants constituted business auxiliary service. The tribunal considered the arguments from both sides and acknowledged that the appellants did not deal with the goods directly. However, it was noted that the appellants received consideration for the service provided to boost the sales of the principal company. The tribunal found that there was a difference in judgment by the revenue, leading to a direction for each appellant to make a pre-deposit of 20% of the service tax demanded within a specified timeframe. The pre-deposit of the balance demand was waived pending the disposal of the appeal, considering the small nature of the demands and the differing interpretations of the law.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of the levy of service tax on the appellants, the challenge to the classification of the appellants as commission agents, and the determination of whether the service provided constituted business auxiliary service. The tribunal directed a pre-deposit for each appellant while awaiting the final decision on the appeal. Levy of service tax - levy under the category of business auxiliary service - goods were not dealt by the present appellants. But they get consideration for service provided to boost the sales of the aforesaid principal who compensated the appellant by way of commission. - Held that:- demand are very small in nature and there is a difference in judgement by the revenue, pre-deposit of 20 per cent of the service tax demanded, predeposit of balance demand shall be waived till the disposal of appeal Ramdiya Sharma Gautam Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Rohtak
Service Tax
2010 (7) TMI 739 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI - [2011] 32 STT 23 (New Delhi - CESTAT)
CESTAT, NEW DELHI - AT
Dated:- 23-7-2010
ST/419, 438-441/2010 - ST/131-135/2010
Service Tax
D.N. PANDA, RAKESH KUMAR, JJ. ORDER D.N. Panda, Judicial Member. - Ld. Counsel Shri S.K. Sarwal Vehemently opposed the levy of service tax on all the 5 appellants for the common cause of levy under the category of business auxiliary service. According to him, when nans of the Appellants dealt with the commodity nor also executed any agreement with Fashion Suitings Pvt. Ltd. but have merely enlisted consumers, they cannot be said to have provided business auxiliary service to the above company. Therefore, the following parties are not liable to service tax :- 1. Shri. Ramdiya Sharma Gautam 2. Smt. Anita Mohan 3. Shri. Vijai Pal Virodhiya 4. Smt. Suman Devi 5. Smt. Sushma Devi 2. Ld. Counsel also submits that order dated 25-5-2009 passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals), Jaipur, is incorrect and aforesaid appellants were not found to be commission agent, in view of the specific Definition or such term appearing under section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994. 3. On the otner nand, revenue's submission is that the servicer provided by the assessees was cusinass auxiliary service. 4. Heard both sides and perused records. 5. We do appreciate that goods were not deaic by the present appellants. But they get consideration ret service provided to boose the sales of the aforesaid principal who compensated compensated the appellant by way of commission. This leaves ample scope for argument by both sides while hearing appeal in detail. Considering that the demand are very small in nature and there is a difference in judgement by the revenue, we direct in each case to make pre-deposit of 20 per cent of the service tax demanded within eight weeks from today and make compliance on 29-10-2010. Subject to compliance, predeposit of balance demand shall be waived till the disposal of appeal.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders