A demand for service tax cannot be sustained by merely comparing figures in ST-3 returns and Balance Sheets without evidence of rendered services. Furthermore, invoking the extended period of limitation requires positive evidence of wilful suppression or misstatement, the burden of which rests entirely upon the Revenue.

Per Mr. AJAYAN T.V.

1. These four appeals, the details of which are tabulated below, preferred by Trade Line, the Appellant herein, involving common issues that are substantially identical, are being heard together and are being decided by this common order.

2. The brief facts are that the Appellant is a registered service provider of Business Auxiliary Services and is engaged in procuring orders from foreign buyers to Cotton Yarn Mills in India for which activity the Appellant received commission from these mills. The genesis of the present set of Appeals originates in an SCN issued in May 2009 pursuant to the audit of the Appellant during which it was noticed that there is a difference between the taxable income in the ST-3 returns and the income declared in the Balance Sheet. The department appears to have formed the view that the services rendered by the Appellant was leviable to service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) and that the Appellant had not discharged its liability in its entirety Hence the said Show Cause Notice, which also had an allegation of availment of ineligible input services was issued invoking the extended period of limitation and demanding the service tax payable along with interest and penalties. This was followed by the other show cause notices as in the tabulation above. The Appellant replied to the Show Cause Notices contesting the demands on the grounds that demands are barred by limitation as well as on merits contending that the Appellants activity cannot be considered as providing Business Auxiliary Services (BAS). The appellant also contended that the Appellants was eligible for the credit taken as the input services were for activities related to business. It was also arguendo contended that if they were Business Auxiliary Services then they are being provided in relation to sale or purchase of agricultural produce and are exempt from service tax under notification no.13/2003 – ST dated 20.06.2003 and notification no.14/2004 dated 10.09.2004 in relation to textile processing. As regards the provisions referred to Show Cause Notice No.30/2013, it was contended that these provisions are not applicable from 01.07.2012 onwards. After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands on the grounds that the activity of the Appellant in procuring orders from the foreign buyers for the export of Cotton / Cotton Yarn is nothing but an activity of “promotion or marketing or sale of goods belonging to the client which is a taxable activity under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’. The Cenvat Credit was also denied on the ground that they do not relate to the output services provided by the Appellant. The Appellant was also found to be ineligible for the bene