KRISHNA FINANCIAL SERVICES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF C. EX.

JUDGEMENT

(1.)

(2.) BOTH the appeals one filed by the assessee and the other by the Revenue are being disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). Revenue being aggrieved with dropping of penalty by Commissioner, in terms of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, has preferred the present appeal. We have heard both sides duly represented by Shri Hrishikesh, Advocate for the appellant and Shri N. Pathak, ld. AR, for Revenue.

(3.) THE appellant's contention is that during the relevant period, there was confusion about the classification of said services, it was not clear as to whether the said services being provided by them are liable to service tax either under the category of business auxiliary service or under the category of business support service, which was introduced with effect from 1 -5 -2006. He submits that in such a scenario there cannot be any mala fide on the part of the appellant so as to invoke the longer period of limitation. However, he fairly agrees that part of the demand would fall within the limitation period and he is not disputing the same. He also relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Brij Motors v. CCE - : 2012 (25) S.T.R. 489 (Tri. -Del.) wherein, while upholding the identical services to be falling under the category of business auxiliary services, benefit of limitation was extended to them.