TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 879X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iary Service is not sustainable - it is found that the service tax in the Commission Agent Service was clearly exempted unconditionally under Notification No.13/2003- ST dated 20.06.2003 up to the period of 08.07.2004. The entire demand for the period 2004-2005 is on the invoices issued on 15.04.2004 and 15.05.2004, therefore, these transactions are clearly under the exemption. Demand of Rs.73440/- for the period 2006-2007 - HELD THAT:- Even in the books of account, the appellant have booked the expenditure under the head of Software Consultancy Service, therefore, the demand treating the receipt as the commission under Business Auxiliary Service would not sustain. Demand of Rs.2363/- - Penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellant have no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arges. For this reason, demand under Business Auxiliary Service treating the receipt as commission is not sustainable. In this regard, he invited our attention to the invoices dated 15.04.2004 and 15.05.2004. He further submits that the Commission Agent Service under the Business Auxiliary Service was exempted under Notification No.13/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. The service tax was exempted. The demand of Rs.69,360/-is on the invoices issued on 15.04.2004 and 15.05.2004, therefore, the entire demand is not sustainable, in view of the exemption under Notification No.13/2003-ST dated 26.06.2003 up to the period of 08.07.2004. He further submits that as regard the demand of Rs.73440/- for the period 2006-07, the service is clearly of Software Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd 15.05.2004, therefore, these transactions are clearly under the exemption. 4.2 As regard the demand of Rs.73440/- for the period 2006-2007, it is observed that even in the books of account, the appellant have booked the expenditure under the head of Software Consultancy Service, therefore, the demand treating the receipt as the commission under Business Auxiliary Service would not sustain. As regard the demand of Rs.2363/-, the appellant have not contested with the same as the same was related to Finance Consultancy Service and the same was discharged by the appellant. They are only contesting the penalty. Considering the meager amount and in the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that appellant have made a fit case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
