TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 551X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt paid to the overseas person is for the packaging of garments at Ireland, U.K. though it is mentioned as "packaging commission". Therefore, taking into consideration the service tax paid ₹ 1,31,352/- paid on GTA and the service rendered by the overseas person is only packaging of garments and not for procurement of orders, the appellant has made out prima facie case for waiver of predeposit - Stay granted. - Application Nos.ST/ROA/40100/2015, ST/41725/2013, ST/COD/41454/2013, ST/S/41455/2013 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2015 - R Periasami, Member (T) And P K Choudhary, Member (J),JJ. For the Appellant : Mr Prasanna Krishnan, Consultant For the Respondent : Mr B Balamurugan, AC (AR) ORDER Per: R Periasami: The appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l papers were with him. Both the company officials and the consultant were not able to get the original appeal papers till they realised through Mr. Gurukrishnan that appeal had not been filed with CESTAT. Only in August 2013, they could file the appeal papers. Considering the reasons to be genuine, the delay is condoned. The COD application is allowed. With the consent of both the parties, the stay application is taken up for hearing. 6. The adjudicating authority demanded service tax of ₹ 21,50,325/- both under BAS (reverse charge) on the commission paid to the overseas person and on GTA outward transportation service. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order. 7. Ld. Consultant submits that out of the total demand of ₹ 16 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd submits that as per the statement of the Director clearly confirmed that they have paid agency commission for procuring the orders. Therefore it is rightly classifiable under BAS and also they failed to explain how packing is done at Ireland and also failed to produce evidence to justify that said services falls under packaging service. 10. After hearing both sides, we find that in so far as demand under GTA service is concerned appellants have already paid ₹ 1,31,352/- after claiming abatement of 75% even though the same was not allowed by the adjudicating authority. If abatement is considered, they have already paid entire service tax except interest. 11. As regards the service tax demand on the service rendered by the over ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
