9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 329X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Aurangabad. As both these orders deal with a common issue, they are taken up together for consideration and disposal. 2. In appeal No. ST/714/2010 the appellant, Suvarna Sanjivani Sugarcane Transport Pvt. Ltd. provided sugarcane harvesting and transportation services to M/s. Sanjivani (T) SSK Ltd. The department was of the view that the said service is classifiable under "Business Auxiliary Service" and the consideration received is liable to Service Tax. Accordingly, a Service Tax demand of Rs. 19,07,585/- was confirmed along with interest thereon and an equivalent amount of penalty under Section 78 apart from penalties under Sections 76 and 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 were also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are eligible for the benefit of this exemption. It is also argued that the payments received by the appellants towards harvesting and transportation have been given to the labour contractors and the transporters and on the commission retained by them, they have paid the Service Tax. The learned counsel submits that the appellants were acting as a 'pure agent' on behalf of the harvesting contractors and the transport contractors and accordingly they are not liable to pay any Service Tax. 4. The learned AR appearing for the Revenue submits that the contract entered into by the appellants is not for sale or purchase of agricultural produce but for harvesting and transport of sugarcane and, therefore, same would not qualify for benefit u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 contractors and transport contractors. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants have not made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit of the dues adjudged. 6. Accordingly, we direct the appellants to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the Service Tax adjudged against them withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
