TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority for verification of the documents - matter on remand. CENVAT credit - credit utilized exclusively for exempted service - the appellant submits that even prior to issuance of SCN, the said amount alongwith interest was paid by the appellant - benefits of sub-section 3 of section 73 available or not? - Held that: - the benefit of sub-section (3) of section 73 ibid should be available to the appellant for non issuance of SCN, especially for imposition of penalty. Therefore, penalty imposed on this count is set aside. Appeal allowed - part matter decided in favor of assessee and part matter on remand. - Service Tax Appeal No. ST/503/2011-ST[DB] Excise Appeal No. E/792/2011-ST[DB] - Final Order No. 52347-52348 /2017 - Dated:- 2-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between both the parties as principal and agent. 2. Revenue s contention is that the appellant has been appointed as an agent of TCIL and as such the findings of the adjudicating authority is erroneous in so far as the order concludes that the appellant is carrying on the business on its own and is not providing any service to TCIL. On perusal of the contract and the impugned order, we find that the amount received by the appellant from TCIL is towards the sale/purchase proceeds and not in connection with the commission as a commission agent. Thus, the transaction between the appellant and TCIL cannot be termed as a commission agent and will not fall under the scope of the commissioner agent for the purpose of levy of service tax under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erest was paid by the appellant. Thus, the benefits of sub-section 3 of section 73 should be available to the appellant for non-imposition of penalty. 6. We find that upon analysis of the contract entered into between the appellant and TCIL that the relationship between the appellant and the TCIL is that of seller and purchaser and cannot be termed as principal and agent. Thus, no service tax is leviable on the appellant on the charges received by it from TCIL. With regard to denial of cenvat credit on excess utilization and availment of common input of cable operator service, we are of the view that the authorities below had denied the cenvat benefit on the ground that the appellant had not produced any documents before them. Since the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
