Business Auxiliary Services Decided Case Laws

CST, New Delhi Vs. Kuoni Travel (India) Limited
Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Services: Section 80: Penalty: There was reasonable cause for failure on the part of the assessee to clear the dues in time. The said finding cannot be said to be either perverse or not borne out from the record. In those circumstances, the discretion having been exercised by the Commissioner in favour of the assessee, in the peculiar facts of the case, do not find a case for interference with the impugned order. The very nature of the entry relating to Business Auxiliary Service and the large number of disputes that arose regarding the scope of entry clearly show that there was some confusion in the minds of prospective assesses about the scope of this entry.


Kundan Castings Vs. CCE, Kanpur
Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Services: Commission received for distribution of mutual fund units: Pre-deposit: As the main contractor has duly discharged service tax liability on the said commission, service tax is not liable to be paid by the applicants as Finance Act does not provide for double taxation of the services. Following the decision of the Larger Bench in the case of M/s. Vijay Sharma & Co., that applicant had strong primafacie case in their favour. Accordingly, waiver of entire service tax and various penalties 


Banas Sands TTCP Ltd. Vs. CCE (Adj) New Delhi
Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Services: Collection of toll tax: Pre-deposit: Collecting toll tax is a sovereign function and cannot be termed as business auxiliary service. The applicant has made out a strong prima facie case in their favour. Accordingly, waiver of entire tax, interest and penalty is allowed and its recovery stayed during pendency of the appeal.


Voltas Ltd. Vs. CST, Ahmedabad
Service Tax: Taxable Value: Pre-deposit: In view of the categorical finding by the Commissioner that the value of the goods supplied was not known to the service provider and the charges were made on the service receivers on the basis of percentage, appellant has not been able to make out a strong prima-facie case in their favour. The appellant should be directed to deposit an amount of Rs. 20 lakhs.


CCE, Ludhiana Vs. The Designer
Service Tax: Business Auxiliary Service: Services received from abroad: The enabling provisions of Section 66 A of the Act, 1994 for charging of service tax from the service recipient in India, in respect of taxable services received from abroad from a person not having office or establishment in India was introduced w.e.f. 18.04.2006 and in view of this, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of Indian National Shipowners Association (supra) has held that for the period prior to 18.4.2006, the service tax liability cannot be fastened on the service recipient in India in a situation where taxable service is provided by a non-resident person not having office/establishment in India. The Revenue's appeal as well as stay application is dismissed.


Uttam Toyota Vs. CCE, Ghaziabad
Service Tax: Cenvat Credit: Input Services: Pre-deposit: In respect of demand relating to other services, demand arising out of credit on various services, the same are contentious and the submissions in respect of each of them have to be gone into in detail at the time of final hearing. Taking the entire facts and circumstances into account, direct the applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 40,00,000/- (para 7)
Service Tax: Authorized service station and Business auxiliary service: Prima facie that the sale of parts and components during rendering services during warranty period cannot be treated as part of the services. Merely because these items were used in undertaking the repairs /maintenance, the same may not become part of the services undertaken. Therefore, the demand of about Rs. 1.88 crores is not, prima facie, sustainable. (Para 6.1.)
Service Tax: Authorized service station and Business auxiliary service: Incentives paid to the dealers: The incentives have a direct relationship with the value of goods so sold on which excise duty becomes payable. To treat the value as representing the value of business auxiliary services is prima facie not correct. And therefore, the demand of about Rs.75.23 is also not, prima facie, sustainable