TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 971X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r negative list as per Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1944 - the appellant is not liable to pay service tax - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/60620/2017 - A/63082/2018-CU[DB] - Dated:- 30-8-2018 - Mr. Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Anil G. Shakkarwar, Member (Technical) For Appellant (s): Shri Vikrant Kackaria, Advocate For Respondent (s): Shri Harvinder Singh, AR ORDER Per: Mr. Ashok Jindal The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the demand of service tax of ₹ 3,49,66,023/- has been confirmed along with interest and equivalent amount of penalty has also been imposed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is a service pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... trients and Seed selection. (vii) How to use insecticides product safely without being unsafe to our body and also our crop product, does and point of purchasing (Shop), per acre dose and per acre water quality. (viii) Field demonstrations including, area measure, water and dose, crop stage, demo plot location (ix) Farmer group meetings (x) Management, commitment and participatory methodologies as a sequel to the feedback from training programmes (xi) Farmer field day on demo plot, observing the results and then conduct field day. (xii) Agriculture Extension Services, which cover all operations in relation to farmer training application of knowledge for better performance of agriculture operations. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as been held that the services rendered by the appellant are Agricultural Extension Services and are covered under negative list as per Section 66D of the Finance Act, 1944. Therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax. 4. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 5. Considering the fact that the issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of M/s Frontier Agrotech Pvt Limited (supra) wherein the services in question are identical to the services in hand and this Tribunal after examine the issue held as under:- 8. We have gone through the agreement as well as photographs. As per agreement, the appellant is required to provide following services:- Work Services: Agriculture Extension Services Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... including, area measure, water and dose, crop stage, demo plot location (ix) Farmer group meetings (x) Management, commitment and participatory methodologies as a sequel to the feedback from training programmes (xi) Farmer field day on demo plot, observing the results and then conduct field day. (xii) Agriculture Extension Services, which cover all operations in relation to farmer training application of knowledge for better performance of agriculture operations. 9. We find that the services provided by the appellant in the nature of following:- General Farmer training; Empirical training; Training for the harvest; and Stewardship. The detail of each activities is as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng areas too learn about modern methods. The Appellant also highlights the incorrect practices adopted by volunteering farmer and suggests the farming practice best suited to the circumstances. Harvesting Days Various stages are involved in cultivation, such as sowing, tilling, flowering, fruition or pod initiation, pod filling, harvesting etc. The season for harvesting is equally important as the season of sowing. The appellant trains the farmers in the best harvesting practices. Stewardship The appellant also conducts programs wherein it intimates precautions required to be observed by farmers during and after application of pesticides. The appellant also teaches farmers the meaning of product labels and signs, ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that the appellant has provided ample evidence in respect of nature of the services provided by them by way of photographs and agreement of other materials but the Revenue has not come with an evidence that the appellant was engaged in the marketing and promoting the product of their principal while providing Agricultural Extension Service. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is not providing any taxable service but is providing only Agricultural Extension Service. 13. Another ground for confirmation of demand is that the appellant is receiving remuneration in terms of sale by the appellant of the product of their principal. In fact, it is only mode of calculation of remuneration of the service provided by the appellant but the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
