TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 670X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nefit of the exemption Notification No. 14/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004. In the cases Arvind A Traders and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Trichy [ 2015 (11) TMI 1176 - CESTAT CHENNAI] , Texyard International and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy [ 2015 (8) TMI 794 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] and Aruppukottai Sri Jayavilas Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai [ 2015 (9) TMI 732 - CESTAT CHENNAI] the demands were set aside on merits as well as on limitation. Further, the Department s appeal filed against the decision in the case of CCE (A) TRICHY VERSUS ARVIND A TRADERS, ANARTEX EXPORTS OTHERS [ 2015 (11) TMI 1176 - CESTAT CHENNAI ] before the Hon ble Apex Court has been dismisse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I) contending that (i) the commission paid to foreign agents is eligible for exemption vide Notification No. 14/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 or Cenvat Credit or refund under Notification No. 18/2009-ST 23.12.2009 (ii) Service Tax under reverse charge is liable to be paid only with effect from 18.04.2006 vide Board s Circular No. 276/8/2009-CX8A dated 26.09.2011 and (iii) the issue involves revenue neutrality and interpretation of law and as such, extended time limit is not invokable and penalty is not imposable. 2.4 The appellants were directed to make a pre-deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- vide Order-in-Stay Petition No. 230/2013 (M-ST) dated 18.12.2013 by the Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable to the appellant. 3. The Ld. Consultant Shri R. Balagopal has submitted that the issue is no more res integra in view of the decisions rendered by the CESTAT in the cases of Arvind A Traders and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Trichy [F.O.Nos. 41056-41095/2014 dated 31.12.2014], Texyard International and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy [F.O.Nos. 41051-41055/2014] and Aruppukottai Sri Jayavilas Ltd. and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai [F.O.Nos. 40733-40755/2015] wherein the Tribunal has set aside the demands on merits and also on limitation. He has further submitted that the impugned order has been passed rejecting their appeal on the ground that the appeal filed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in the case of Aravind A Traders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2016 (44) STR 264] before the Hon ble Apex Court has been dismissed. 8. The Tribunal in the cases of Texyard International and Others Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy [F.O.No. 41051-41055/2014] has held as follows:- 6.1 We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides and also examined the records. The assessees filed appeals contesting the service tax demanded under reverse charge on the commission paid to the overseas agents for export of finished goods. The Revenue filed appeal against setting aside of penalties by Commissioner (Appeals). The main issue in the present appeals is whether appellant-assessees are eligible to the benefit of exe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods for, on behalf, of the client; c) provision of service on behalf of the client, or d) a service incidental or auxiliary to any activity specified in (a) to (c) above. and provided in relation to agriculture, printing, textile processing or education. from the whole of service tax leviable thereon under section 66 of the said Finance Act: 6.2 The lower authorities denied the exemption merely on the ground that the said services are not used for textile processing. On careful reading of the above notification, it is evident that service tax was exempted during the relevant period for the services provided under Business Auxiliary Service if it relates to agriculture, printing, textile processing or education. The appe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts with deliberate intention to evade payment of service tax. As payment of service tax by the recipients was under dispute for a long period till that was settled by the decision of Apex Court in the case of UOI Vs Indian National Ship Owners Association 2011 (21) STR 3 (SC) there was no deliberate intention to make suppression of facts. Appellants were under bonafide belief that as per the EXIM Policy at para 2.482 of the Policy Period 2009-10 issued by Notification No.1/(RE/2008)/2004- 2009 dt. 11.4.2008 all goods and services exported from India, services received/ rendered abroad wherever possible shall be exempted from service tax. Therefore, the demand is also hit by limitation and the extended period cannot be invoked. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
