Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2023 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (8) TMI 187 - AT - Service TaxSSI Exemption - use of brand name of another person - Commission Agent Service - Case of appellant is that service of Commission Agent is on behalf of the principal, cannot be treated as branded service as for providing a Commission Agent Service there is no need of using the brand name of their client - benefit of exemption under N/N. 6/2005-ST denied - HELD THAT:- The appellant has provided Commission Agent service to their clients. The appellant as a commission by mediates between their client and customer of the client, while providing commission agent service and does not use the brand name of the service providers for the reason that they are providing service on behalf of the client and there is no need of brand name for providing service to the same client. Therefore, the department without any basis made a bald allegation that appellant is using brand name for providing Commission Agent service. This identical issue has been considered in the case of M/S. REETIKA CABLE VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CGST, CHANDIGARH [2021 (7) TMI 887 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH] - on perusal of this decision, it is settled that in case of providing a Commission Agent servicer, is not a branded service. Thus, it can be seen that Commission Agent service provided by the appellant cannot be treated as branded service. Accordingly, the exemption Notification No. 6/2005-ST cannot be denied - the demand confirmed by the lower authorities denying exemption Notification 6/2005-ST is without any basis - appeal allowed.
|