9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (7) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hish Kumar Gupta , Adv for the appellant Mr A. V. L. N. Chary A. R. for the Respondent ORDER PER R. MURALIDHAR The appellant is before us on appeal on account of confirmed demand in respect of following services. Particulars Amount in dispute(Rs) Period (1) (2) (3) 1. Service Tax collected on behalf of Principals Rs 38,53,951/- 2006-07 to 2009-10 2. Steamer Agency Commission Rs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rincipals, he comes out with a Table wherein it is shown that Rs 15,75,182/- collected as Service Tax between 2006-07 to 2009-10, were not remitted to the principal but were being shown as 'payable' to the Principal. 3. The learned AR submits that if the appellant was not rendering any service to their clients, they should not have collected the Service Tax in the first place. Further, they have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as an agent and once he charged the Service Tax and collected the same from their clients, such amount should have been properly remitted to the exchequer. Instead they claim that they have given back the Service Tax so collected to the Principal, which is not backed by any evidence. The fact of retaining Rs 15,75,182/- till 2014, goes against their submission. Even otherwise, the practice adopte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same is sold to clients at a higher rate. The difference between sale price and purchase price is their trading profit. He submits that since trading profit is not on account of any service provided by them, the confirmed service tax demand on this amount is required to be set aside. (ii) Secondly he submits that the service provided by them is not that of Business Auxiliary Services at all b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
