RICOH INDIA LTD. Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Sr. Counsel submits that when a bill is printed on computer that shall not be called Business Auxiliary service to fall under Section 65(19)(vii) of the Finance Act, 1994. Mechanical work being done for printing only and there was no support service provided for promotion or marketing, the printing of bill shall not be taxable service. He places the work order from BSNL and MTNL appearing at page 51 of the appeal folder. So also he invites attention to the purchase order issued in favour of Gestetner (India) Ltd. (later on changed to Ricoh India Ltd.) to submit that the work order nowhere provides any scope to bring the Appellants to the fold of business promotion service. Inviting attention to the show cause notice he submits that the purpose of business promotion service is not served by the Appellants. He relies on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Business Information Processing Services v. CCE, Jaipur, reported in : 2009 (14) S.T.R. 81 to supports case. Summarily, his submission is that none of the issue framed by the adjudicating authority was to determine the nature of activity of business auxiliary services.

(2.) Learned D.R. on the other hand submits that the nature and scope of service was to provide Business Auxiliary service by the Appellant and that has been rightly held to be taxable by the adjudicating authority.

(3.) HEARD both sides and we have also gone through the documents to which our attention was invited. The definition of term 'Business Auxiliary Service' has undergone amendment. The law as appearing in the statute book during the relevant period for which demand has been raised relates to all incidental or auxiliary activity to the activities enumerated by law in such Clauses (i) to (vi) of Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994. The indirect activity supporting or effectuating the direct activity is according to the legislative intent shall fall in the residuary such clause i.e. (vi) of Section 65(19). When the activity is in relation to specified activity sought to be taxed, we do not consider the Appellant to avail total waiver of pre -deposit at the interim stage. Following the Apex Court decision in the case of Dunlop India - : 1985 (19) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.), we direct the Appellants to deposit Rs. 20 lakhs (Rupees twenty lakhs) within 4 weeks from today and make compliance on 26 -11 -2010. Subject to compliance of above direction, realization of balance demand shall remain stayed during pendency of appeal.