TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 953X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ically reiterates the findings of the Order in original. The argument that the activity undertaken by an entity abroad for the purpose of documents and registration before Foreign Regulatory Authority can be terms as activity of Commission Agent is misplaced. Consequently, demand under 4 ST/12282/2018 the heading of Business Auxiliary Services cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. The impugned notice instead of granting the benefit of exemption of service tax to the extent of 1% of the free on board value of export goods, grants the exemption to service tax on the 1% of free on board value of export goods to the Commission. It is seen that the notification is very clear. The exemption is granted to Service Tax to the extent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods by the appellant. The appellant claimed the exemption from Service Tax in respect of services provided by such foreign commission agents under Sno. 2 of Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated 07.07.20096. 4. A Show Cause Notice was issued to the appellant demanding the Service Tax on both these activities undertaken by foreign entities as the Commission Agent. The demand on the first issue where the foreign entities obtained registration on behalf of the appellant from the foreign authorities was raised under the heading Business Auxiliary Services . Learned Counsel pointed out that Show cause notice do not specify under which sub-heading the Business Auxiliary Services the demand was raised. He pointed out the definition of Busine ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of Business Auxiliary Services . 4.1 On the second issue relating to the demand of Service Tax on Commissioner paid to the foreign Commission Agent , learned Counsel argued that they are squarely covered by the S.no. 2 of the Notification No. 18/2009 dated 07.07.2009. He argued that even CBEC circular no. 118/12/2009-ST dated 23/11/2009 also covers the issue in their favour. 4.2 He further argued that larger period of limitation has been invoked wrongly as the appellant has maintained complete records of all the transactions. He also argued that they had produced all the records before the audit and no suppression can be alleged on the part of the appellant. 5. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. 6. We have gone thro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r services; (v) Undertakes any activities relating to such sale or purchase of such goods or services. 6.2 We find that for the purpose of second issue, the activity may be a Commission Agent . However, the first issue is concerned the appellant cannot be called a commission agent. The appellant was engaged in receiving services of documentation and registration from a foreign entity. The said services do not make the foreign entity a Commission Agent in terms of the above definition. Therefore, the very foundation of the allegation that service provider is Commission Agent is misplaced in far as the first issue is concerned. It is seen that even Order in appeal in para 6.3 practically reiterates the findings of the Order in orig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em, project export, or export financed under lines of credit extended by Government of India or EXIM Bank, or export made by Indian partner in a company with equity participation in an overseas joint venture or wholly owned subsidiary. (4) The exporter shall submit with the half yearly return after certification of the same as specified in clause (g) of the proviso- (i) the original documents showing actual payment of commission to the commission agent; and (ii) a copy of the agreement or contract entered into between the commission agent located outside India and the exporter in relation to sale of export goods, outside India: 6.4 The app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
