Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2018 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (8) TMI 1171 - AT - Service TaxBusiness Auxiliary Service or Agricultural Extension Services? - appellant was working a super distributor for one major pesticides/insecticides manufacturer and were engaged in marketing and promotion of pesticides/insecticide manufactured by their principal - Held that:- Nowhere it is coming out that the appellant is doing marketing and promotion of the product of their principal. Moreover, in the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner has observed that the “Agricultural Extension Service” is of scientific research and knowledge by observing that “None of the supporting documents which the Noticee have submitted to substantiate their claim that they have been providing Agricultural Extension Service, could show that the farmers were being given any training through scientific research and knowledge to agriculture practices through farmer education and training.” The appellant was required to provide scientific research and knowledge to agriculture practices through farmer education and training. As per agreement, the appellant has provided the said service. The finding of the Ld. Commissioner is not appreciable. The appellant has provided ample evidence in respect of nature of the services provided by them by way of photographs and agreement of other materials but the Revenue has not come with an evidence that the appellant was engaged in the marketing and promoting the product of their principal while providing Agricultural Extension Service - the appellant is not providing any taxable service but is providing only Agricultural Extension Service. Receipt of remuneration in terms of sale by the appellant of the product of their principal - Held that:- The appellant is getting separate commission on which they are discharging service tax liability. Therefore, on the basis of remuneration, it cannot be held that the appellant is providing service of marketing and promotion. As on merits the services rendered by the appellant are “Agricultural Extension Services” and are covered under negative list as per section 66D of the Finance Act, 1944, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay service tax - as the issue is decided on merits, the issue of penalty is not taken up. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|