TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eeded on the presumption that the amount in question has been obtained as consideration received for providing the taxable service. There is no denial that the appellant was providing taxable service but the impugned amount is the amount of discount. Hence, it was for the adjudicating authority to first decide whether the amount is towards the consideration of service provided as of pure agent. That Commissioner (Appeals) has held that cash discount since is given on the sales value, hence it is part of the given purchase - Commissioner (Appeals) in paragraph 7 of the order has specifically mentioned that the amount of discount is not related with the service. Still applying section 66 D of Service Tax Act for confirming the service tax on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one whose value of taxable service in the proceeding year had not exceeded ₹ 10 lakh. From the table as given in the order above it is clear that year 2013-14 is the preceding year for 2014-15 when the value of taxable service rendered was less than ₹ 10 lakh. Hence the exemption of said Notification shall definitely be available to appellant from paying service tax on the value of taxable service received by him in the year 2014-15 - However, with reference to the demand of service tax for year 2013-14, there is no data about the taxable income received by appellant in the preceding year of Financial year 2013-14 (financial year 2012-13). In absence of any documents for the same, the benefit of exemption in the above said noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recovery was proposed along with the interest and the penalty. The said Show Cause Notice was initially adjudicated vide Order-in-Original No. 360/2020 dated 28.02.2020holding that the amount as received by the appellant in the form of reimbursement expenses are not taxable. Accordingly the demand of ₹ 73,874/- was dropped. However, demand of Service tax upon the remaining two amounts received as consideration as C F commission and as discount amounting to ₹ 4,17,888/- was confirmed by the Original Adjudicating Authority. The said order has been upheld by Commissioner (Appeals) rejecting the appeal before him. Still being aggrieved, the appellant is before this Tribunal. 2. I have heard Ms. J Kainat, and Shri Bipin Garg, l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erms of said Notification. It is submitted that the adjudicating authority has failed to consider the said notification. The order is accordingly prayed to be set aside and appeal is prayed to be allowed. 5. While rebutting the submissions, learned Authorised Representative emphasised upon para 8 of the order under challenge where the Commissioner (Appeals) has clearly appreciated that neither of the amounts received by the appellants i.e. commission and discounts are covered under the negative list of section 66D of Finance Act. The applicability of the Notification No. 25 has specifically been denied by the Commissioner (Appeals). It is emphasised that the Order of Adjudicating Authority be upheld and the appeal be dismissed. 6. Aft ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... round that the impugned service did not find mentioned in the negative list of service Section 66D of the Act thereof as was amended with effect from 01.07.2012. However, I observe that the Adjudicating Authority has proceeded on the presumption that the amount in question has been obtained as consideration received for providing the taxable service. There is no denial that the appellant was providing taxable service but the impugned amount is the amount of discount. Hence, it was for the adjudicating authority to first decide whether the amount is towards the consideration of service provided as of pure agent. That Commissioner (Appeals) has held that cash discount since is given on the sales value, hence it is part of the given purchase. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is accordingly liable to be set aside. 9. Coming to the issue of demand of service tax on the amount of commission received by the appellant, there is no denial on the part of the appellant that it was rendering the taxable service as that of pure agent by entering into the agreement with M/s. Obsurge Biotech Ltd. The agreement clarifies that the amount received as commission was very much the part of the amount of consideration received for providing the said services. However, as brought to notice the Notification No. 33/2012 dated 20.6.2012, it is observed that the exemption from payment of service tax has been provided to small scale providers i.e. the one whose value of taxable service in the proceeding year had not exceeded ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
