TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 436
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed the demand of service tax under Business Auxiliary service but granted relief of limitation by holding that extended period of limitation is not applicable in the present case and confirmed the demand for the normal period amounting to Rs.1,77,398/-. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the applicant had been working as Direct Marketing Associate ('DMA') of several clients including ICICI Bank and Citi Bank. In their capacity as DMA, the appellant by their own admission were engaged in developing customers for their clients and completion of documentation regarding various leans to be advanced by their clients. For such services rendered by the appellant to their clients, they have been receiving commissions from their cl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....engaged in verification of the documents for Finance Companies and was getting certain commission on which service tax is demanded under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. 4.2 He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the demand beyond the normal period of limitation and has also dropped the penalty under Section 78 but has upheld the demand for the normal period of limitation and also upheld penalties imposed under Sections 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The learned Counsel further submits that this issue stands decided in favour of the appellant in the following cases:- * S.R. Kalyanakrishnan Vs. CCE, Cochin - 2008 (9) STR 255 (Tri.). * R.V. Management Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....llowing decisions: * Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur Versus ALCOBEX METALS reported as 2003 (153) ELT 241 (SC). * INFINITY INFOTECH PARKS LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA reported as 2014 (36) STR 37 (CAL). * Shyam Spectra Pvt. Ltd. decided vide final order No. 56196 of 2024 dated 31.07.2024. 4.5 He further submits that when the demand itself is not sustainable the question of imposition of penalty does not arise. 5. On the other hand, learned Authorized Representative for the department defends the impugned order and submits that the appellant was working as Direct Marketing Associate (DMA) of several clients including ICICI Bank and Citi Bank and as per the statement of Shri Ravish Sharma, proprietor of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rketing the products of the banks/institution and they are direct selling agent who act as agent of the banks for selling their products. He further submits that the contention of the appellant that they are involved in only documentation as DMA/DSA is factually incorrect. 5.3 Learned Authorized Representative for the Department submits that the issue involved in the instant appeal is no more res integra and has been held in favour of the Department in the following cases: (i) ADDIS MARKETING-2017 (50) S.T.R. 56 (Tri. - Mum) (ii) BHAVEN DESAI-2016 (43) S.T.R. 235 (Tri. - Mum) (iii) JMD marketing-2016 (46) S.T.R. 504 (Tri. Mum) 20 (iv) ORACLE FINANCIAL SERVICES-2013 (31) S.T.R. 337 (Tri. - Del.) ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rvice tax is sought to be demanded under the category of Business Auxiliary Service, whereas the fact of the matter is that the appellant are working as Direct Marketing Associates of M/s ICICI Bank and M/s Citi Bank and the same is clear from the agreements entered into by the appellant with M/s ICICI Bank and the Citi Bank which has been referred to by the learned Authorized Representative. 7. Further, we find that Sh. Ravish Sharma S/o late Sh. B.D. Sharma, who is a proprietor of the appellant had tendered the statement under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, wherein he has stated that they are working as Direct Marketing Associate of M/s ICICI Bank and the Citi Bank and their activities are confined to completion of documen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellants are liable to pay service tax under Business Auxiliary Service and to that extent, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and accordingly, we uphold the same. 10. As regards invoking the extended period of limitation, we find that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the demand beyond the normal period of limitation and also dropped penalty under Section 78 by relying upon the decision of the Tribunal. Further, we find that once the demand for the extended period is set aside by the Commissioner (Appeals) then in view of the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of M/s Infinity Infotech Parks Ltd (supra) and also by the Principal Bench of the Tribunal in the case....