9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 856X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 39;business auxiliary service' and interest thereon besides imposing penalty under section 77 and 78 of Finance Act,1994. 2. The appellant has been held liable to tax for the period from February 2004 to April 2006 on amounts allegedly received as 'commission agent' which falls within the definition of 'business auxiliary service' in section 65 (19) of Finance Act, 1994. The appellant entered into an 'agreement of retail agency' with M/s Style Spa in January 2004 in accordance with which the appellant provided its space in a commercial building for exhibiting the products of M/s Style Spa which were to be delivered by the appellants to customers on instructions. The appellants were responsible for collecting and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... greement' to support the case of Revenue. 6. We find that the definition of 'business auxiliary service' includes that rendered by a 'commission agent' since the introduction of the taxable entry but 'commission agents' were exempted from the purview of tax by notification no. 13/2003-ST dated 20 th June 2003. However, the said exemption was restricted to sale and purchase of agricultural produce vide notification no. 8/2004-ST dated 9 th July 2004. Commission agent was defined in the said exemption notification as 'a person who causes sale or purchase of goods, on behalf of another person for a consideration which is based on the quantum of such sale or purchase' 7. We take notice of section 65(105)( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The remuneration that was to be made over to the appellant is based on quantum of sale. Guarantee of minimum payment of Rs. 1,10,000/- per mensem does not detract from the connection with sale. This is squarely within the ambit of 'commission agency' which became taxable for non-agricultural produce in the hands of provider of 'business auxiliary service' vide notification of 9 th July 2004. Appellant is eligible for exemption from February t July 2004. It is observed that, during the period of dispute, appellant was in receipt of only the minimum guaranteed amount of Rs. 1,10,000/-. The agreement also makes it clear that M/s Style Spa is responsible for discharge of tax liability. In view of these facts, the plea of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
