9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (6) TMI 237 - AT - Service TaxDemand of Service tax prior to 06.11.2006 - Commission received from various financial institutions - Held that - the similar issue was decided by the Apex Court in the case of Jaiprakash Inds. Ltd. vs. CCE 2002 (11) TMI 92 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and Suchitra components vs. CCE 2007 (1) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Therefore, we are of the view that First Appellate Authority has correctly followed the ratio of the Apex Court and the Board circular and confirms the demand post 06.11.2006 in respect of the commission received from financial institutions and in respect of the demand of service tax on the profit sharing received AutomartIndia Ltd. We noted that it is recorded in the balance sheet as a profit received from business enterprises undertaken. - Decided against the revenue
Issues:
1. Classification of services provided by the appellant 2. Demand raised on commission received from financial institutions 3. Demand of service tax on profit sharing received from AutomartIndia Ltd. Classification of services provided by the appellant: The appeal was against an Order-in-Appeal dated 11.01.2010. The appellant contested the demand raised on commission received from financial institutions post 06.11.2006 and the demand of service tax on profit sharing received from AutomartIndia Ltd. The First Appellate Authority confirmed the demand on commission post 06.11.2006 but set aside the demand related to profit sharing. The appellant argued that their services should be classified as Business Support Service until 06.11.2006, following a circular issued by the Board. The Tribunal noted that the appellant did not contest the service tax liability but raised a classification issue. The Tribunal referred to case laws and upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision, stating that the demand raised prior to 06.10.2007 was time-barred. The penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 was set aside due to the demand being hit by limitation. Demand raised on commission received from financial institutions: The Tribunal found that the revenue did not contradict the findings of the First Appellate Authority regarding the demand on commission received from financial institutions. The revenue argued that demands should be confirmed even for the period before 06.11.2006, but the Tribunal disagreed, citing previous apex court judgments. The Tribunal upheld the First Appellate Authority's decision to confirm the demand post 06.11.2006 on commission received from financial institutions. The case followed a Board circular and confirmed the demand post 06.11.2006. Demand of service tax on profit sharing received from AutomartIndia Ltd.: Regarding the demand of service tax on profit sharing received from AutomartIndia Ltd., the Tribunal noted that the appellant was receiving a share in the profit from the sale of used cars. The Tribunal referred to a circular clarifying that activities where profit is shared are not covered under service tax. Therefore, the appellant was not liable to pay any service tax on activities related to AutomartIndia Ltd. where profit was shared. The Tribunal rejected the appeal filed by the revenue, confirming the decision of the First Appellate Authority and disposing of the case. This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the key issues involved and the detailed reasoning provided by the Tribunal in each aspect of the case.
|
