CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH REGIONAL BENCH - COURT NO. I Service Tax Appeal No. 60530 of 2013 [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. CHD-EX-CUS-000-APP-127-13-14 dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise & Service Tax] M/s Baba Finance Company ……Appellant SCO 87, 2^nd Floor, Sector 44-C Chandigarh 160067 VERSUS Commissioner of Central Excise & Service ……Respondent Tax, Chandigarh-I Central Revenue Building, Plot No. 19 Sector 17-Chandigarh 160017 APPEARANCE:

Shri Vikrant Kackria, Advocate for the Appellant Shri Narinder Singh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. S. S. GARG, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON’BLE MR. P. ANJANI KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)

FINAL ORDER NO. 60235/2026 DATE OF HEARING: 19.11.2025 DATE OF DECISION: 09.03.2026 S.S. GARG:

The present appeal is directed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh, whereby the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has confirmed the demand of service tax under Business Auxiliary service but granted relief of limitation by holding that extended period of limitation is not applicable in the present case and confirmed the demand for the normal period amounting to Rs.1,77,398/-.

2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the applicant had been working as Direct Marketing Associate (‘DMA’) of several clients including ICICI Bank and Citi Bank. In their capacity as DMA, the appellant by their own admission were engaged in developing customers for their clients and completion of documentation regarding various leans to be advanced by their clients. For such services rendered by the appellant to their clients, they have been receiving commissions from their client. Further, the appellant also provided the services of Real Estate Agents in the year 2008-09. No Service Tax was paid by the appellant and accordingly, a show cause notice for the recovery of Service tax of Rs.10,78,567/- along with interest and penalty was issued. After following the due process, the additional Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 28.10.2010 confirmed the demand of Rs.10,78,567/- under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest and also imposed penalty of Rs.200/- per day and also imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act and Rs.2,000/- under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed the demand on merit but granted the relief of extended period of limitation and confirmed the demand for normal period of limitation.

Hence, the present appeal.

3. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record.

4. The Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and is liable to be set aside as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law.

4.1 He further submits that the only issue involved in the present case relates to demand of service tax amounting to Rs.1,77,398/- along with interest and penalty under Section 76 and penalty under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 during the period of 2008-09. He further submits that the appellant was engaged in verification of the documents for Finance Companies and was getting certain commission on which service tax is demanded under the category of Business Auxiliary Service.

4.2 He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) has dropped the demand beyond the normal period of limitation and has also dropped the penalty under Section 78 but has upheld the demand for the normal period of limitation and also upheld penalties imposed under Sections 76 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The learned Counsel further submits that this issue stands decided in favour of the appellant in the following cases:-

 S.R. Kalyanakrishnan Vs. CCE, Cochin - 2008 (9) STR 255 (Tri.).

 R.V. Management Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mangalore - 2008 (10) STR 3