2017 (9) TMI 80 - AT - Service Tax

Service of Commission Agent - job work of Cutting - taxability - Held that - service as Commission Agent, has been exempted by N/N. 13/2003-S.T. - credit notes relates to relates to April, May and June and as such, are covered by the exemption notification - demand set aside. Cutting charges - Held that - In terms of Section 65(19) Business Auxiliary Services does not include any activity that amounts to manufacture within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act, 1944. As such, we find no justification to the service tax liability on such activities. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Service tax liability on commission received.
2. Service tax liability on cutting charges.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Service tax liability on commission received
The appellant was engaged in manufacturing bars and rods of iron and steel, along with providing commission agent services and cutting job work. The dispute revolved around the service tax liability on commission received and cutting charges. The lower authorities confirmed a service tax liability of &8377;4,70,289 for the period from April 2004 to June 2009. The appellant argued that the service tax liability on commission received was exempted until July 2004 as per Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. The appellant had discharged the service tax liability for the period 2005-06 to 2007-08. The Tribunal noted that the commission received during April, May, and June was covered by the exemption notification. Therefore, the Tribunal found no justification for the service tax liability on commission received and set aside the lower authorities' decision.

Issue 2: Service tax liability on cutting charges
Regarding the service tax liability on cutting charges, the appellant contended that the activity could not be categorized under "Business Auxiliary Services" as the process amounted to "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The lower authorities had acknowledged that the process undertaken by the appellant constituted manufacturing. The Tribunal observed that under Section 65(19), "Business Auxiliary Services" exclude any activity amounting to "manufacture." Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for imposing service tax liability on such activities. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, ruling in favor of the appellant and allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT New Delhi, comprising Dr. Satish Chandra and Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (T), overturned the lower authorities' decision on both issues. The Tribunal found that the commission received by the appellant was exempted until July 2004, and the cutting charges did not fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Services due to the manufacturing nature of the activity. As a result, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the service tax liability imposed on the appellant.