Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 51 - CESTAT AHMEDABADService tax liability on the ground that appellant being Commission Agent of IOCL - Contracts entered with IOCL indicates the same as Job Contract. Appellants submits that he purchases and causes sale of goods and hence cannot be considered as a Commission Agent, falling within the definition of 'Business Auxiliary Services' enshrined in Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994 – Held that:- There is nothing on record, to come to a conclusion that appellants have been purchasing and selling the goods - In the Job Contract, it is directed that the appellants herein shall maintain pump in a particular way for sale of the goods and, or ask for supplies as and when requirement arises. – Arguments that services rendered by the appellants would not fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Services, is debatable one and needs deeper consideration - Appellants have not made out a prima-facie strong case for the waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved. Accordingly, directed appellants, M/s. Jaysukh Dayani to deposit Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees three lakhs only) and Shri M/s. Vilesh Premji Thacker to deposit Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only) within eight weeks.
|