TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2007 (1) TMI 67
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... City Bank during the period from July 2003 to September 2004. Adjudication proceedings were conducted. The adjudicating Authority held that the appellants are liable to pay service tax under the category of "business auxiliary services" during the period from July 2003 to September 2004. He confirmed an amount of Rs. 54,56,783/- towards their service tax liability for the above mentioned period. Interest under Section 7 of the Finance Act 1994 was demanded. Penalties of Rs. 200/- for every day of default was imposed under Section 76. A penalty of Rs. 1,000 under Section 77 of the Finance Act was imposed for failure to file ST 3 returns in the prescribed form. Further it was held that appellants suppressed the value of taxable service with ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the part of the assessee to evade duty. (iii) The activities carried on by the appellants in terms of the agreements would fall under "Support Services of Business or Commerce (SSBC for short) under Section 65 (104 C) of the Act, with effect from 1-5-06. The definition .of SSBC covers services provided "in relation to business or commerce and includes evaluation of prospective customers, telemarketing processes" etc., The activities performed by the appellants are appropriately classifiable under SSBC in terms of the principles of classification laid down in Section 65-A of the Act and tax liability would arise with effect from 1-5-06. Hence there was no service tax liability during the disputed period. The show cause notice at page 2 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....notice and impugned order and the same is not chargeable to service tax as per the Trade Notices and Circular enclosed to the compilation and the following two decisions rendered by this Bench. (a) B.S. Refrigeration Ltd., v. CST, 2006 (4) S.T.R. 103 (T-Bang) (b) Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. CST in Final Order No 1775/06, dated 18-10-2006, [2007 S.T.R. 118 (Tribunal)] (vii) Even assuming that the appellant would fall under clause (ii) of the definition of BAS viz., promotion or marketing of service on behalf of client, the Appellant would be liable to pay service tax only on the service element. The appellant had received total retainer fees of Rs. 12,59,000 for the period from July 2003 to September 2004 from Citibank....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otices of the other Commissionerates cited by the appellants have been issued in different contexts and are not applicable to the present case. The appellants claim for deduction is not supported by the provisions of Section 67 of the Act or a notification is sued under Section 93 thereof or the Board's circulars. The claim for deduction of expenses claimed by the appellant is untenable. (3) The appellant's contention on the extended period invoked in this case is not correct. The comparison with a call centre attempted to be drawn by the appellant is a futile exercise. The comparison is not relevant to the case. The fact that the service provided is taxable cannot be disputed. The exemption cited is not applicable to them. (4....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....zar Ali, General Manager on the same day. Shri Sharath Reddy has stated that he was given to understand that service tax is not applicable for the nature of business that he is doing. Service rendered by the appellant unit is sourcing customers for personal loans and housing loans on behalf of M/s Citibank N.A., and M/s. Citi Financial Retail Services India Ltd. The issues to be decided are the following: (1) Under what category the services rendered by the appellant are liable to service tax in terms of Finance Act 1994? (2) whether the show cause notice is time barred as contended by the appellants? Even though the statements were taken on 20-9-2004, the show cause notice has been issued for the period from July 03 to June 04 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ced or provided by or belonging to the client; or (ii) promotion or marketing of service provided by the client; or (iii) any customers care service provided on behalf of the client; or (iv) any incidental or auxiliary support service such as billing collection or recovery of cheques, accounts and maintenance, evaluation of prospective customs & public relation services, as a Commission agent, but does not include any information technology service". From the above, it is seen that promotion or marketing of services provided by the client also come under the category of Business Auxiliary Services. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the appellant that ser vices provided by them would not come under the ca....