9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Liability of Service Tax on commission agents under Business Auxiliary Services. 2. Applicability of Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. dated 20-6-2003. 3. Allegation of suppression of facts and invocation of a longer period in the show cause notice. Issue 1: Liability of Service Tax on commission agents under Business Auxiliary Services: The appellants contended that they primarily operate as commission agents and were exempt from Service Tax liability under Business Auxiliary Services as per Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. dated 20-6-2003 until it was amended on 9-7-2004. Despite voluntary registration for Service Tax on 14-9-2004, the revenue claimed they were liable even for the period from 1st July, 2003 to 30th June, 2004. The authorities argued that the appellants' services exceeded the scope of commission agents. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found that the appellants had a strong case on merits. The benefit of the said notification was deemed applicable during the relevant period. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered a complete waiver of the pre-deposit of dues demanded until the appeals were disposed of, with a stay on coercive action by the revenue. Issue 2: Applicability of Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. dated 20-6-2003: The appellants emphasized that their main role was that of commission agents, falling under the exemption provided by Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. dated 20-6-2003 until its amendment in 2004. They argued that this exemption should be considered while determining their Service Tax liability. The Tribunal agreed with this stance, holding that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the notification during the relevant period. This finding supported the decision to waive the pre-deposit of dues until the appeals were resolved. Issue 3: Allegation of suppression of facts and invocation of a longer period in the show cause notice: The revenue invoked a longer period in the show cause notice, alleging suppression of facts by the appellants. However, the appellants presented correspondence with the department to demonstrate that they had not concealed any information. The Tribunal, after careful consideration, found no justification for the invocation of a longer period. It was observed that the appellants had not suppressed any facts, leading to the decision to allow the appeals and stay any coercive action by the revenue until the matter was heard on a specified date. This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues of the case, the arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's decision on each matter, preserving the legal terminology and significant details from the original text.
|
