Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

C.S.T. New Delhi Versus Shri Jitender Lalwani, Shri Kamal Lalwani

2016 (12) TMI 1526 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Business auxiliary services - sale of goods to M/s. Amar Products on commission basis - Circular no. 59/8/2003 dated20.06.2003, 62/11/2003-ST(F.No. B3/7/2003) dated 21.08.2003 and B/2/8/2004-TRU dated 10.09.2004 - Time bar - Held that: - There is no dispute on the facts that the appellant in his individual capacity has provided services to M/s. Amar Products and was not having any commercial concern for undertaking the business in regular course. As such we find no infirmity in the views adopted .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Revenue. - Appeal rejected - decided against Revenue. - ST/381, 385/2012-CU(DB) - FINAL ORDER NO. 55552-55553/2016-CU(DB) - Dated:- 25-11-2016 - Ms. Archana Wadhwa, Member (Judicial) and Shri V. Padmanabhan, Member (Technical) Shri Sanjay Jain, DR for the Applicants Ms. Seema Jain, Advocate for the Respondent ORDER Being aggrieved with the order passed by Commissioner (A) vide which he has rejected the Revenues appeal filed before him as the impugned order passed by the Assistant Commis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aised the demand of service tax against the appellant. During adjudication the original adjudicating authority took a view that as the appellant was providing such services to M/s. Amar Products as an individual and not under the name of any commercial concern he would not be covered by the definition of Business Auxiliary Services as appearing in section 55 (105)(zzb) of the Finance Act 1994. The adjudicating authority referred to various circulars of the board as also various decisions of the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cal stand before the appellate authority that they were not engaged in providing any promotion marketing custom care or other incidental or auxiliary services falling under the category of Business Auxiliary services to Amar Products and has introduced only one buyer to the exporter and that too only for one time. They have no establishment or any commercial concern providing such services. Introduction of one particular customer would not amount to providing business auxiliary services. They al .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ons issued by the CBEC in the above mentioned Circulars, it is amply clear that services performed by individuals in their individual capacity without having proper commercial establishment would not be chargeable to Service Tax. In other words, individuals undertaking services cannot be subjected to Service Tax where scope to levy service tax has been limited to a commercial concern only by virtue of definition in the relevant section. Therefore, applying the same analogy, in the instant case a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the order of the adjudicating authority holding that services provided by individual person other than commercial concern would not be taxable prior to 01.05.2006 and according to evidence placed on record Shri Ravi Lalwani had provided said service in his individual capacity without having any commercial establishment. Though the CBEC Circulars relied upon above by the respondents and the adjudicating authority are in respect of other services but same analogy and underlying principle laid .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

belief that services rendered by him were not taxable under service tax on account of various CBEC circulars and judgments of the Hon ble Tribunal in this regard. I find that it is settled principle of law that extended period is not invokable where the issue involves interpretation of various provisions of law and information is already disclosed in statutory documents such as Balance Sheet or Income Tax Returns. Accordingly, the submission of the appellant in this regard does not hold ground. .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version