9911796707
TMI Blog2010 (8) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Order-in-Original No. 94/2007-S.T., dated 20-12-2007 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Service Tax, Division-I Bangalore and rejected the appeal filed by MIPL impugning the Order-in-Original. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellant engaged in the manufacture of precision tools is also registered with the department as a provider of services classifiable under the category "Business Auxiliary Services" (BAS). The assessee identified customers for certain high-end tools manufactured by MAPAL, Germany and extended support till the Indian customer placed purchase orders on the German Company. The assessee received commission for the above services from MAPAL, Germany in convertible foreign exchange. During the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spect of which consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange. This Notification was rescinded on 1-3-2003. Vide Circular No. 56/5/2003-S.T., dated 25-4-2003, the CBEC clarified that export of services would continue to remain tax free even after rescinding of Notification No. 6/1999-S.T., dated 9-4-1999. 4.1 As per Notification No. 13/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003, a commission agent is a person who causes sale or purchase of goods, on behalf of another person for a consideration which is based on the quantum of such sale or purchase. The revenue has no case that MIPL was not a commission agent as per the above definition. Therefore, during the period 1-7-2003 to 20-11-2003, the services rendered by MIPL could not have been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices. 4.2 We have also considered the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in Delhi in the case of Microsoft Corporation (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax - 2009 (16) S.T.R. 545 (Delhi) cited by the learned SDR in support of the impugned order. We note that the High Court rejected the writ petition filed by the appellants therein holding "that the dispute involved had to be decided by the Tribunal first. The order impugned before their lordships was a stay order of the Tribunal which had taken a prima facie view on the dispute. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi did not find it appropriate to interfere with the order impugned in exercise of their jurisdiction under the Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. We find that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
