2015 (11) TMI 1484 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Liability prior to amendment made in sub class (zzb) of section 65 (105) - Held that - Revenue appeal has to be dismissed of as we find that against the very same order respondent was in appeal before this bench in case 2012 (12) TMI 579 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD holding in favor of the respondent here-in and setting aside the impugned order. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Order-in-Original dropping service tax demand based on interpretation of "Commercial concern" and applicability of tax liability pre-amendment.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed an appeal against Order-in-Original no.46-48/STC-I/BR/10-11, contesting the dropping of a demand of Rs. 11,81,800 on the grounds that service tax liability does not arise on an individual prior to an amendment in sub class (zzb) of section 65 (105) of the Finance Act 1994. The Commissioner's interpretation of the expression "Commercial concern" was also challenged. The Tribunal heard both sides and reviewed the records.

Upon examination, the Tribunal found that the Revenue's appeal had to be dismissed, as a previous appeal by the respondent against the same order had been decided in favor of the respondent. The earlier appeal (ST/387/11) was disposed of by the Tribunal, holding in favor of the respondent and setting aside the impugned order.

The Tribunal referenced specific findings from the earlier appeal, highlighting that the appellant had engaged in promoting products through various means and had appointed an agent to handle payments and discharge service tax liability. The Tribunal emphasized that the service tax liability had been discharged by the agent on behalf of the appellant, even if it was categorized under a different service head. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant had fulfilled the service tax liability through the appointed agent, rendering the proceedings unwarranted.

Based on the previous decision and the detailed analysis of the appellant's actions and tax discharge process, the Tribunal upheld the earlier decision and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal found no merits in the Revenue's arguments and ruled in favor of the respondent, affirming that the service tax liability had been appropriately discharged through the appointed agent.

Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the decision in favor of the respondent was upheld, based on the previous tribunal ruling and the proper discharge of service tax liability through the appointed agent.