Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (7) TMI 1784

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing orders on behalf of the clients for which the appellant would be paid commission to be calculated at the rate on sales amount. It is, therefore, not in dispute that the appellant has to cause sale of products on behalf of the client. Mere fact that in the subject agreements, the appellant has not been specifically addressed as commission agent will not dis-entitle the appellant from availing the benefit of exemption provided in the notification. Reliance can be placed in the case of CHAHABRIA MARKETING LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX MUMBAI [ 2016 (3) TMI 1050 - CESTAT MUMBAI] where it was held that Once it is held that the assessee is a commission agent by virtue of being engaged in the activity of causing sale or purc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gory of Business Auxiliary Services . Accordingly, SCN dated 26.09.2008 was issued to propose demand of service tax. The Ld. Commissioner after following the due process of law, adjudicated the said SCN confirming demand of service tax alongwith interest and imposed penalty, which is under challenge in this appeal. 3. Sri S.Bagaria, Ld.Advocate, appeared for the appellant and Sri H.S.AbedinLd. D.R., appeared for the Revenue. 4. The Ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that during the impugned period July 2003 to March 2004, the levy of service tax under Business Auxiliary service was specifically exempted vide Notification no. 13/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 which was in force during the above period. He submitted .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... king sale and purchase of goods on behalf of the client and not for undertaking services for the client. He prayed that the appeal be summarily rejected being devoid of any merit. 6. Heard both sides and perused the appeal records. 7. The issue to be decided in this case is whether the appellant is legally eligible for exemption from payment of service tax under Notification no. 13/2003 (Supra). On perusal of the aforesaid exemption notification, we find that the term commission agent has been defined as a person who causes sale or purchase of goods, on behalf of another person for a consideration which is based on the quantum of such sale or purchase. During the impugned period, business auxiliary service provided by a commissio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cause sale of products on behalf of the client. Mere fact that in the subject agreements, the appellant has not been specifically addressed as commission agent will not dis-entitle the appellant from availing the benefit of exemption provided in the notification. We take note of the decision of the Tribunal in case of Chahabria Marketing Ltd (Supra) wherein it has been observed that: 6.1 In the impugned order the Commissioner has denied the benefit of exemption on the ground that the activities performed by the appellant were much wider than that of a commission agent as defined in the Notification. He has observed that though the commission was fixed with reference to the quantity of goods actually sold, the activities of the appe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rson who causes sale or purchase of goods, on behalf of another person for a consideration which is based on the quantum of such sale or purchase. It is evident from the provisions of the agreement quoted above that the appellant was causing sale or purchase of goods on behalf of its clients (liquor company). It is also evident that the consideration received by the appellant was based on the quantum of the goods sold. Therefore it satisfied the requirements of being categorised as commission agent as per the definition given in the said Notification. Though, admittedly, the appellant was rendering several other services also (all of which have been held to be covered under BAS by the adjudicating authority) that would not debar it fro .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates