TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1680
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e are that the appellants entered into an agreement with M/s ICICI Bank to market the products of the bank with reference to car loans, retail finance, two wheelers loans, personal loans, home loans etc. They received consideration as a percentage of commission for the services rendered to ICICI Bank. The Revenue entertained a view that the appellants provided taxable service under the category of Business Auxiliary Service during the period 01/07/2003 to 31/03/2005 and initiated demand proceedings by issuing show cause notice dated 28/07/2008. The appellant contested the demand. The case was adjudicated resulting in the impugned order. The Original Authority held that the activity of the appellant are squarely covered under the category of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... providing an assistance to the marketing of the product and not engaged in such marketing or promotion of services as a principal. Making such distinction in terms of the agreement, the learned Counsel submitted that they cannot be taxed under general category of market promotion under BAS. Their services are liable to be taxed only as BSS only w.e.f. 01/05/2006. 4. Contesting the demand on limitation as well as imposition of penalties, learned Counsel submitted that the appellants executed the work in terms of the agreement. In respect of similar agreement for another person with the same bank, the matter reached the Tribunal in the case of Wings Group of Companies vs. CST, Bangalore - 2008 (12) S.T.R. 287 (Tri. - Bang.), wherein the Tri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....decision relied on by the appellant, he submitted that the decision in S.R. Kalyaniakrishnan (supra) is specifically with reference to only verification of correctness and authenticity of information provided by the seekers of loan from the client bank. The single Member decision in the case of Wings Group of Companies (supra) relied on this decision without distinguishing the facts. In any case the terms of the present agreement are clear and the decision in S.R. Kalyaniakrishnan (supra) has no application to the present case. 6. Contesting the appellant's plea on limitation and penalty, the learned AR submitted that there is no case for bonafide belief during the material time. The appellants have not discharged service tax during the ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd to upkeep their goodwill and brand name. That by itself will not make the activities of service provider as other than marketing service of the product. "Business Auxiliary Service" as defined clearly states that any service in relation "promotion or marketing of service provided by the client" shall be liable to tax. Having perused the terms of the agreement extensively, we have no doubt that the appellant did market the services provided by the client bank. It will not be correct to state that the appellant only provided operational assistance in such marketing. No such words were used in the terms of the agreement and in fact the agreement directly refers to the appellant as a service provider "to mark its products (ICICI Bank)". In f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said decision appears to be same as could be seen from para 1 of the said decision. However, reliance placed by the said decision on the decision in S.R. Kalyaniakrishnan (supra) appears to be not factually applicable. Without further commenting on the merits of the said decisions, we are only concerned with possibility of certain interpretation during the time. These factors lead us to conclude that the appellants cannot be put to tax liability and penalty by invoking provisions like suppression of fact, mis-representation with intend to evade payment of service tax in terms of proviso to Section 73 (1) of the Act. We note that the present proceedings are initiated after audit of the records of the appellant during the month of July, 2006.....