2023 (5) TMI 656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....9.10.2010 was issued to the appellant for the period April, 2005 to March, 2007 demanding service tax under the category of 'business auxiliary service' BAS which becomes taxable from 01.07.2003. The show cause notice also invoked the extended period of limitation contemplated under section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 The Finance Act. The Commissioner has held that the extended period of limitation was correctly invoked in the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Shri K Shivarjan, learned Chartered Accountant appearing for the appellant has pointed out that earlier a show cause notice dated 28.7.2008 was issued to the appellant for the period from 01.07.2003 to 31.03.2005 raising a demand for service tax under BAS on the same grounds....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... terms of the agreement. It is apparent and clear that the said agreement is to market the financial products of the client bank. Regarding the monitoring and strict regulation exercised by the ICICI Bank, we note that the same will not be a material fact to decide whether the appellant have undertaken the main work of marketing the financial products of the client bank. The client bank will certainly exercise various control on the service provider in their commercial interest and 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....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ness auxiliary service and business support service. All these disputes were after the introduction of BSS after 1-5-2006. 10. Though, we find substantial force in the submission by the Revenue regarding the correctness or applicability of the single member decision in Wings Group of Companies (supra), the fact remains such decision created an inference that similar services by other companies are not liable to be taxed under BAS. We note that the scope of agreement dealt with in the 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. Kalyanakrishnan (supra) appears to be not factually applicable. Without further commenting on the merits....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ast vs. Team HR Services Ltd. 2018 (10) TMI 406 -DELHI HIGH COURT The observations made by the Delhi High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the Department against that part of the order of the Tribunal holding that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked, are as follows: "5. The CESTAT was influenced - as is apparent from the reading of the order, by the prevailing confusion between the nature and content of the two taxable incidents i.e. the definition between "business auxiliary services", which insisted from 2003 and "business support services", which was a fresh levy introduced w.e.f. 1-5-2006. Concededly, the assessee was filing his assessment returns after 1-5-2006 when business support service was introduce....