2018 (9) TMI 1667 - AT - Service Tax

Business Auxiliary Service - engagement of agents in foreign countries by the appellant for promoting, sales, securing orders - Held that - This Tribunal in the case of Maxican Exports Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchi 2018 (8) TMI 819 - CESTAT CHENNAI , where it was held that Service tax if any payable under reverse charge is permissible to be availed as cenvat credit and that may be refundable under Notification No.41/2007 unless otherwise deniable by law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Scope of service tax on commission paid to foreign agents for promoting sales.
3. Applicability of Business Auxiliary Service under Section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994.
4. Interpretation of case law precedent in similar matters.
5. Decision on the appeal based on previous Tribunal rulings.

Delay in Filing Appeal:
The Hon'ble Supreme Court condoned the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, leading to the matter being taken up for final hearing.

Scope of Service Tax on Commission Paid to Foreign Agents:
The dispute revolved around the engagement of agents in foreign countries by the appellant for promoting sales and securing orders. The department argued that the commission paid to foreign agents falls under the scope of a commission agent, making the amounts received subject to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service as per Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.

Interpretation of Case Law Precedent:
The appellant's counsel cited a previous Tribunal order in Texyard International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy, which favored the appellant's position. The counsel highlighted that a batch of appeals decided by the Tribunal had ruled in their favor, indicating a consistent interpretation in similar cases.

Decision Based on Previous Tribunal Rulings:
The Tribunal, considering the precedent set by Texyard International and a recent decision in Maxican Exports Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Tiruchi, decided in favor of the appellant. The Tribunal found that the issue had already been settled in favor of the appellant based on the case law cited. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief as per the law.

This comprehensive analysis of the judgment showcases the Tribunal's consideration of the delay issue, the interpretation of service tax applicability on commission paid to foreign agents, reliance on case law precedent, and the ultimate decision based on previous Tribunal rulings.