9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (10) TMI 545X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the appellants. Hence such services will hereinafter be referred to as services of Commission Agents. The appellants did not pay service tax on the amounts paid by them as commission during the period of dispute. The Department issued show cause notices to them in Mar. 99 demanding service tax on the commission paid by them during the above period. These notices also proposed penalties on them. The demand of service tax and the proposal to impose penalty were contested by the party. The original authority confirmed the demand of tax and imposed penalties on the above units of the appellants. The orders passed by the original authority were upheld by the first appellate authority. The present appeals are against the orders of the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the validation of the action taken by the Department through the subject show cause notices between 16th July, 1997 and 12th May, 2000 (the date on which the Finance Act, 2000 received Presidential assent) does not affect the non-taxability of the services availed by the appellant s during the period of dispute. It is alternatively argued that, as the services of a Commission Agent are covered by Business Auxiliary Services made taxable only with effect from 14-5-2003, the services availed by the appellants cannot be taxed for any period prior to the said date. It is in this context that reliance was placed on the Board s Circular. 3. Ld. SDR would rely on the Mumbai Commissionerate s Trade Notice No. 59/99 dated 4-10-1999 as also on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at they could be treated simplicitor as Commission Agents. But the service of Commission Agents was expressly included in Business Auxiliary Services, which became taxable for the first time on 14-5-2003 only. The CBEC themselves treated Commission Agents differently from Consignment Agents. Hence, according to the appellants, the commission paid by the appellants to their agents during the period of dispute (prior to 14-5-2003) was not taxable. On the other hand, relying on the Bombay Commissionerate s Trade Notice and the Tribunal s decision in Prabhat Zarda Factory (supra), ld. SDR has endeavoured to canvas the point that the services availed by the appellants from their agents during the period of dispute were in the nature of services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fying customers for the appellants, collecting purchase orders from them and awarding such orders to the appellants against payment of commission. There being no dispute of this fact, there must be no difficulty in identifying the appellant s agents as Commission Agents and, if that be so, the Board s Circular can easily be relied on to hold that the services availed by the appellants during the period of dispute were the services of Commission Agents and the same were different from the services of Clearing and Forwarding Agents (including Consignment Agents). In the result, it requires to be held that the services availed by the appellants during the period of dispute, were services of Commission Agents, coming within the definition of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
