TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 474X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill pay the appellant the amount equivalent in Indian rupees on the date of transaction and appellant will also get incentive on Indian rupee transaction, as per agreement. We find that the activity as is in transaction of the appellant would be covered under the category ‘Business Auxiliary services’, as the appellant is acting as agent of Thomas Cook, and it is very clear from the closure of agreement that appellant has been given restricted money exchange agency by Thomas Cook India Ltd. (from the authorization they have received for engaging in money exchange). - undisputedly appellant are acting as an agent of Thomas Cook India Ltd. We find that appellant has no case on merits. Appellant could have had a bona-fide belief that they a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to M/s Thomas Cook and appellant used to get an amount as an incentive. Both the lower authorities held that the activity of receiving an amount from Thomas cook would be covered under the service tax net, as commission received is chargeable to tax under Business Auxiliary Services. 3. Learned counsel would take us through the order-in-original, the impugned order and the agreement entered by the appellant with the said M/s Thomas Cook. It is her submission that the period involved in this case is 2006 07 to 2008 09. She would submit that the appellant is in the hospitality industry and as required under the law needs to cater to the foreign tourist, it is mandatory to have the money exchange out let in the premises. It is her sub ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... discharged the service tax liability and interest thereof. On limitation, it is her submission that appellant, could have entertained a bona-fide belief that they were are not in the business of money exchange but that being incidental to the main activity no service tax liability arises. Hence the demands which have been raised beyond the extended period of limitation are liable to be set aside. 4. Learned departmental representative on the other hand relied upon the same agreement and submits that the agreement clearly indicates that the appellant is acting as an agent and gets commission for such activity, though they are reorded as incentive. It is his submissions that documents not indicate that appellant has purchased and sold the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d counsel that they are mandated to only exchange the money on a authorization from Thomas Cook is requirement on the Law, we find that this submission may not carry the case of the appellant any further, in as much that, undisputedly appellant are acting as an agent of Thomas Cook India Ltd. We find that appellant has no case on merits. 7. On limitation, we find that appellant has a case in their favor in as much, on holistic reading of the agreement entered into, indicates that appellant could have had a bona-fide belief that they are not liable to service tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Services . The service tax liability was first indicated by the officers of audit team. We find that the appellant has taken the point o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
