TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 1234X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argo sales agents etc. - whether taxable under Business Auxiliary services or not? - Held that: - In view of the fact that the period of dispute in the case of the appellant is from 01/07/2003 to 09/09/2004, which is prior to the date of amendment of the definition of business auxiliary service, the explanation inserted in such definition subsequently, cannot have the retrospective application - d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iaising with the authorities, make sales, appoint passenger and cargo sales agents etc. The period of dispute in this case is from 01/07/2013 to 09/09/2014. On perusal of the service agreement entered into by the appellant with Thai Airways, the Department entertained the view that the activities undertaken by the appellant should fall under the taxable category of business auxiliary service, defi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for consideration of the same as a service inasmuch as the former statute is limited the scope of 'commission agent', in respect of goods only and not for the services. It is his further submission that commission agent with regard to provision of service, was specifically brought into the definition of business auxiliary service only w.e.f. 16/06/2005 and accordingly, the service tax de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... belonging to the client . The services of the commission agent were also included in such definition clause. However, such definition was not specific, whether the commission agent should deal with the goods or services. Provision of service by the commission agent was specifically brought into the definition under the Finance Act, 2005, w.e.f. 16/06/2005. We find that by interpreting the amended ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the date of amendment of the definition of business auxiliary service, the explanation inserted in such definition subsequently, cannot have the retrospective application. Thus, we are of the considered view that the appellant was not liable to pay service tax under business auxiliary service prior to 16.06.2005. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the impugned order. Accordingly, after setti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
