9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 223X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Auxiliary Service". A show cause notice dated 25.01.2007 was issued proposing the demand of service tax of Rs. 11,38,072/- alongwith interest and to impose penalties under various provisions of Finance Act, 1994 for the period from 01.7.2003 to 09.09.2004. The Respondent took a stand before the adjudicating authority that they received commission from the principal for causing the sale of their product and other incidental activities. It was stated that they were eligible for the benefit of exemption Notification No. 13/2003-ST dated 20.6.2003. The Respondent also contested the demand on limitation. The adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of service tax alongwith interest and also imposed penalties under various sections. The Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is no suppression of facts with intent to evade payment of duty. He also drew attention of the Bench to the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). He relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kaur & Singh vs. CCE, New Delhi 1997 (94) ELT 289 (SC). 5. After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the records, we find that the Respondent was engaged in providing services as Commission Agent for products such as yarn and textile machinery. It is seen from the reply of the show cause notice that the commission was paid on principal to principal and case to case basis, depending upon various factors and quantum of commission is depending on such sale or purchase by the customer from the principal. It is categoric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on depending upon such sale or purchase by the customers. The Tribunal in the case of CCE, Vadodara-I vs. M.A. Menon & Co. (supra) held that primarily the Respondent is a Commission Agent and other activities are incidental thereof. The relevant portion of the said decision is reproduced below:- "3. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. There is no dispute as regards facts. As per facts on record, the respondents are required to promote entire product range of the principal which involves identification of customers, explain the utility of the product, obtain samples from the principal and provide for trial and if the customer finds the product suitable - transaction thereafter take place between principal and custome ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t submits that they have started paying service tax from 10.09.2004 and therefore they were under the impression that they were eligible for the exemption benefit till 09.09.2004. He also submits that the adjudicating authority had not given any findings that Respondent had intention to evade payment of service tax. 8. We are unable to accept the submission of the learned Advocate. We find that the Respondent was already registered with the Service Tax authorities and availing the benefit of exemption notification 13/2003-ST (supra) and therefore, it was within the knowledge of the Respondent that this exemption notification was amended by Notification No. 08/2004-ST dated 09.7.2004. It is noted that they have started paying service tax fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
