Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2019 (6) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2019 (6) TMI 829 - AT - Service Tax


Issues:
1. Taxability of commission income claimed as export of service.
2. Exemption of commission income related to textile processing.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.

Analysis:
1. The first issue pertains to the taxability of commission income claimed as export of service. The appellant received a demand of ?33,176 for Business Auxiliary Service provided to a China-based client. The appellant argued that since the consideration was received in convertible foreign exchange, the service qualifies as an export service and is not taxable. The tribunal agreed, stating that the service provided from India to the client in China, with consideration in convertible foreign exchange, falls under export service and is not taxable.

2. The second issue involves the exemption of commission income related to textile processing. A demand of ?89,350 was imposed, which the appellant contended was exempted under Notification No. 14/2004-ST. The tribunal concurred, ruling that the commission related to textile processing business is indeed exempted under the said notification, hence not taxable.

3. The final issue concerns the imposition of penalty under Section 76 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The appellant admitted and paid a service tax demand of ?84,270 along with interest. The tribunal noted that simultaneous penalties under Section 76 and 78 cannot be imposed, citing a precedent from the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court. Consequently, the penalty under Section 76 was set aside. Regarding the penalty under Section 78, the tribunal found that the lower authorities did not allow the appellant the option to pay 25% under the proviso to Section 11AC. Citing a Supreme Court judgment, the tribunal ruled that the appellant is entitled to the 25% penalty option. Therefore, the penalty was reduced to 25%, provided the entire tax amount, interest, and the 25% penalty are paid within one month from the date of the order. The appeal was partly allowed on these terms.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates