2015 (1) TMI 35 - AT - Service Tax

Commission paid to the foreign agents in relation to agriculture - import of service u/s 66A - exemption under Notification No. 13/2003-S.T., dated 20-2-2003 - Held that - Claim of the learned counsel that agriculture covers pisciculture etc. is not borne out from the meaning given in the Notification. For general purposes, agriculture may include different operations but when the Notification gives the meaning, that meaning has to be applied. Under these circumstances, we do not find any prima facie case in favour of appellants. Accordingly, the appellants are directed to deposit 50% of the service tax demanded within six weeks. - stay granted partly.

Summary

Issues:
Recovery of service tax on commission paid to foreign agents under Section 66A of Finance Act, 1994; Applicability of exemption under Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. for services related to agriculture.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a case where the appellant, engaged in exporting prawns, paid commission to foreign agents, leading to the initiation of proceedings for recovery of service tax under Section 66A of the Finance Act, 1994. The demand for service tax amounting to Rs. 2,54,483/- along with interest and imposition of penalty ensued. The appellant claimed exemption under Notification No. 13/2003-S.T., contending that services related to agriculture, including pisciculture, are exempt. However, the AR argued that the processes undertaken by the appellants do not fall under the definition of agriculture as per the Notification.

Upon reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal examined the definition of agriculture provided in Notification No. 13/2003. The definition specified that agriculture produce includes items resulting from cultivation without further processing altering their essential characteristics, encompassing cereals, pulses, fruits, and more, but excluding manufactured products like sugar and edible oils. The Tribunal concluded that the meaning of agriculture as per the Notification did not support the appellant's claim that pisciculture falls under agriculture. Therefore, the Tribunal found no prima facie case in favor of the appellants.

Consequently, the Tribunal directed the appellants to deposit 50% of the service tax demanded within six weeks and report compliance by a specified date. Upon compliance with this directive, the pre-deposit of the remaining dues was waived, and a stay against recovery during the appeal's pendency was granted. The judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the specific definitions outlined in legal notifications when claiming exemptions, emphasizing the need for alignment with statutory provisions to establish a case successfully.