Case Law Details
SUMMARY OF CASE LAW
In terms of the Board’s clarification dated 28-2-2006, the service rendered namely outsourcing of spot billing work by APCPDCL would come within the ambit of business support service which is liable to service tax only with effect from 2006.
RELEVANT PARAGRAPH
13. We have gone through the records of the case very carefully. The active carried out by the appellant is mainly spot billing and data processing for the APCPDCL. The appellants have clearly shown that during the relevant period, the services would come within the category of information technology service and they would be specifically excluded from the scope of business auxiliary service by way of explanation to section 65(19). They have relied on the decision of this Bench in the case of Dataware Computers vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Customs & Service Tax (Guntur) wherein it is held that computerized data processing falls within the realm of information technology service and consequently it is excluded from the category of business auxiliary service. In that case also, the activity carried by the appellant was similar. Again in the case of Bellary Computers vs. Commissioner of Central Excise also a similar activity was subject matter of the appeal and it was held that supply of computers, printers, hardware items generation of MIS reports and data processing would fall within the category of business auxiliary service. There was an amendment to section 65(15) with regard to the explanation on the scope of the information technology service which was amended and till 1-5-2006 as a consequence of the amendment the said service would be excluded from the scope of business auxiliary service. The appellants had taken pains to show that during the relevant period the activity carried out by them would not fall within any of the sub-categories of business auxiliary service. On this there is no discussion by the Commissioner in the impugned order. Only a bald statement that the said service comes under business auxiliary service has been made. Again our attention was also invited to the Board’s Clarification 28-2-2006 wherein it is clearly stated that services provided on behalf of the appellant would be falling under the business auxiliary service. Appellants here are directly rendering service to APCPDCL. They are not the agents of APCDPCL. Therefore in terms of even the Board’s Clarification the services rendered namely outsourcing of spot billing work by APCPDCL would come within the ambit of business support service which is liable to service tax only with effect from 2006. the period in the present case pertains prior to that. Moreover there is no justification for invocation of the extended period. The appellant has made out a very strong case to show that the services rendered by them would not fall within the category of business auxiliary service during the relevant period. In view of this we are inclined to allow the appeal with consequential relief. The impugned order is set aside. Thus the appeal is allowed.
