9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pplicable to the facts of the present case. As regards the benefit under Notification No. 14/2004-S.T., the service has to be rendered in relation to agriculture. In the instant case the service has been rendered to the sugar factory and sugar is a manufactured product. Therefore, it cannot be said that the said service has been rendered to the client in relation to agriculture. Further, there is nothing available on record to show that the appellant was acting as a pure agent on behalf of the clients. The appellant was rendering service to third party namely, sugar factory, and the service was not rendered to the harvesting contractor or the transport contractor. The appellant was rendering the service by engaging harvesting contractor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed. The appellant preferred an appeal before the lower appellate authority who dismissed the appeal. 2.1 In appeal ST/587/2010, the appellant M/s. Amrut Sanjivani Sugarcane Transport Pvt. Ltd. rendered sugarcane harvesting and transportation services to M/s. Sanjivani (T) SSK Ltd. during the period 2005-06 to 2008-09. The said service was classified by the Revenue under Business Auxiliary Service and a Service Tax demand of ₹ 57,35,805/- was confirmed against them along with interest thereon and also imposing penalties under Sections 78, 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. The case was adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Aurangabad. 2.2 It is against these orders the appellants are before us. 3. The learned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cation No. 13/2003-S.T. Similarly, the benefit under Notification No. 14/2004-S.T. will be available only if the procurement of goods and services are provided in relation to agriculture. In the instant case the service has been rendered to the sugar factory and sugar being a manufactured product, cannot be considered as an agricultural produce and consequently the service cannot be said to have been rendered in relation to agriculture. He further argues that there is nothing on record to show that the appellant was acting as a pure agent on behalf of the harvest contractor and the transport contractor. The very fact that the appellant was earning commission on the activity undertaken by him would also show that he was not acting as a pure ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
