Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
R.S. Financial Services vs C.C.E., Jaipur I on 11 January, 2012
CUSTOMS EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, West Block No.2, R.K.Puram, New Delhi COURT-II Date of hearing/decision: 11.1.2012 Service Tax Appeal No.394 of 2008 Arising out of the order in appeal No.32(RKS)ST/JPR-I/2008 dated 3.7.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise , Jaipur. R.S. Financial Services .. Appellants Vs. C.C.E., Jaipur I . Respondents
Appearance:
None for the appellants Shri R.K. Gupta, A.R. for the respondent Coram: Honble Mr. D.N.Panda, Judicial Member Honble Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Technical Member Oral Order No.____________________ Per Mr. D.N. Panda:
None present for the appellant.
2. Learned Authorised Representative appearing for the Revenue says that the nature of activity carried out by the appellant was to promote the business of ICICI Bank providing the services of processing of loan application for commercial vehicle which has resulted in promotion of business of the bank as well as the vehicle seller. Therefore, such marketing efforts comes under the category of business auxiliary service as defined by Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994.Hence the appellant was rightly imposed with tax liability as well as penalty and interest.
3. Heard the learned Representative for Revenue and also perused the contents of the show cause notice. The nature of activity carried out as has been urged by Revenue falls within the ambit of Business Auxiliary Service. Therefore, there is no scope to grant any relief in so far as levy of service tax is concerned.
4. We looked into the penalty aspect involved in appeal. The Appellate order does not demonstrate any mala fide of the assessee to bring it to the fold of penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Therefore, there shall be wavier of penalty imposed under these two sections.
5. So far as penalty under Section 77 is concerned, when the liability commencesd such penalty becomes imposable. Therefore, penalty of Rs.1000/- imposed under Section 77 is confirmed.
6. Interest, if any, realizable against the service tax demand shall be payable.
7. With the aforesaid decision, the appeal is partly allowed.
(D.N. Panda) Judicial Member (Rakesh Kumar) Technical Member scd/