TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1526X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... precedent decisions. Time bar - Held that: - during the relevant period there was a lot of confusion. All the activities undertaken by the appellant were a part of the reflection made in the balance sheet and income tax return in which case no suppression or malafide can be attributed to the assessee. No malafides could be proved by Revenue - the extended period would not be available to 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 aggri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice. 3. Being aggrieved with the said order of original adjudicating authority, Revenue filed an appeal before Commissioner (A). The respondent took a categorical 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 also relied upon various circulars of the board wherein it was clearly emphasiz ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices 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 down by the CBEC can be applied to the Business Auxiliary Services under consideration also and such Circulars in favour of the assessee are binding on the department as per principle laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court in the matter of CCE Vs. Dhiren Chemical Ind. 2002 (139) ELT 3 (SC). 4. As regards ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the sides we find that both the lower authorities have dropped the demand by taking into consideration clarification issued by the board through their circular being 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. 6. 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 by Commissioner (A) or the original adjudicating authority which is based upon boards circular and the precedent decisions. 7. Apart from the merits we also note that the lower authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
