Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 410 - AT - Service TaxBusiness Auxiliary Service - promotion/marketing of the sale of goods belonging to their clients - benefit of exemption under Notification No 14/2004-ST dated 10.04.2009 - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The services provided by the person (service provider) to the client are only exempted in terms of the said notification, and services provided by the appellant to their clients do not fall within the any of the clauses referred at ‘a’ to ‘d’ in the said notification the benefit of exemption will not be admissible to the appellants - In the case under consideration Commission Agents were procuring the orders as per which the textile materials was to be manufactured and supplied hence bench concluded that the activities undertaken were incidental and auxiliary to the auxiliary to the activity of production. In the present case appellants do not provide any service in relation to textile processing to their clients. Management and Business Consultancy services - Commission Agent services - N/N. 14/2004-ST - HELD THAT:- The entire defence of the appellants is that if the turnover in respect of Commission Agent services, which as per them is exempted under Notification No 14/2004-ST is excluded then their total turnover will be less then ₹ 10 Lakhs and they will be exempted under Notification No 6/2005-ST. Since we do not agree with the contention of the appellants that the services provided by them as commission agent are exempt from payment of service tax the entire defence set up for getting this demand set aside collapses. Time limitation - Bonafide belief - HELD THAT:- We do not find anything placed on record to show the existence of such a bonafide belief - the demands made by invoking the extended period of limitation as provided by Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 are sustainable. Demand of interest - HELD THAT:- Since we have upheld the demand of service tax, the demand of interest under Section 75 is natural corollary. Penalties - HELD THAT:- Since service tax has been demanded invoking extended period of limitation under Section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, penalty under Section 78 will follow - Since appellant have failed to take registration and pay the service tax, penalties under section 77(1)(a) &77 (2) of Finance Act, 1994 to are justified and sustained. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
|