2015 (12) TMI 273

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... m. (AR) ORDER Per: M.V. Ravindran 1. This appeal is directed Order-in-Appeal No. AGS(45)/ 129/2010 dated 18/03/2010 passed by Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals),Aurangabad. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the discharge of service tax liability during the period 2005-06 to 2006-07 on an amount received as commission f .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... es. The demand is confirmed on the ground that the appellant provided 'Business Auxiliary Service' and received some amount from the sugar manufacturers on which appropriate service tax has not been paid. The contention is that the appellant is undertaking the activity of harvesting and transportation of sugarcane from the farmers fields to the sugar factory and to coordinating such activities the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tification. Hence, the demand is not sustainable. 5. We find that in the case in hand there is no dispute that the appellant is transporting sugarcane from the farmers fields to the sugar factory and the ratio of the Tribunal decision in the case of Dnyaneshwar Trust (supra) will directly apply. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X