TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 132X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be seen that whether the appellant got the right for transmission of electricity from their principals. Admittedly, the appellant has provided these services on behalf of the distribution licensee, who are having license to distribute the electricity. In the case of Canara Bank [2012 (6) TMI 274 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD], this Tribunal got an occasion to examine the issue whether a person, who is providing services on behalf of the principal is entitled to the benefit of notification or not, and it was held that an exemption to the principal would be available to agent also. As the appellant is providing services on behalf of the principal, who is having a license as distribution licensee to distribute electricity under the Electricity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted, two show-cause notices were issued to the appellants to demand service tax on the services provided by them and consequently the adjudication took place. The adjudicating authority found that the appellants provided the services are in nature of in relation to distribution of electricity, therefore, in terms of Notification No.45/2010-ST dated 20/07/2010 upto 31/06/2010, the appellant was not liable to pay service tax but for the subsequent period, in terms of negative list regime, started the benefit of said notification shall not available to the appellant. Consequently, for the rest of the period the demand of service tax was confirmed along with interest and various penalties were imposed. Aggrieved by the said order, the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd that in this case the facts of the case are not in dispute that the appellant is providing services in relation to distribution of electricity to DHBVN UHBVN and upto 21/06/2010, the benefit of Notification No.45/2010-ST dated 20/07/2010 has already been granted to the appellants. The sole ground for denial of benefit of exemption Notification No.32/2010-ST dated 22/06/2010 is that the appellant is not a distribution licensee or distribution franchisee or any other person authorized under the Electricity Act for distribution of electricity. For better appreciation Notification No.32/2010-ST dated 22/06/2010 is extracted below: Exemption to taxable service provided for distribution of electricity In exercise of the powers co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oviding services on behalf of the principal is entitled to the benefit of notification or not, the same is being examined by this Tribunal and observed as under: 12. From the above it can be seen that RBI have the right to transact Government business and allow an agent to perform its function. . 5. The first question that we have to consider is whether an agent of a principal who is also a dealer under the Act is entitled to the same rights as his principal has under the Act. Under the general law the agent merely represents his principal. Therefore, while functioning within the scope of the agency he can exercise all the rights which his principal could have exercised. In fact, in the case of an ordinary agency, the agent m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he benefit of exemption available to RBI would be available to the agent i.e. Canara Bank. III. The services are in the nature of statutory/sovereign functions and hence not liable to service tax. 8. As this Tribunal held that an exemption to the principal would be available to agent also and further in the case of State Bank of Patiala (supra), this Tribunal followed the same principle and allow the benefit of exemption notification. 9. In view of the above discussion, we hold that as the appellant is providing services on behalf of the principal, who is having a license as distribution licensee to distribute electricity under the Electricity Act. Therefore, the benefit exemption Notification No.32/2010-ST dated 22/06/2010 ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
