9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 147X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Seeds Act, 1966. An investigation was conducted in the premises of the respondents on 02.05.2008 and it was found that the respondents are engaged in the activity of Technical Inspection and Certification Service of seeds produced by the seeds producer in the state of Haryana and issuing the certificates. It was found that as per the section 65(105)(zzi) of Finance Act, 1994, the respondents are liable to pay service tax on their activity under category of Technical Inspection and Certification Services. Therefore, the show cause notices were issued to the respondents for the period of 2003-04 to 2007-08. The show cause notices were issued by invoking extended period of limitation and the adjudicating authority after giving opportunity to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d they are registered society under the Society Registration Act, 1860 and working under the Seed Act, 1966 as the certifying agency for seeds. It is further submitted that a clarification was sought by the Gujarat State Seed Certification Agency, Ahmadabad and it was clarified vide clarification dated 27.09.2006 that the activity undertaken by the respondent is the sovereign function and they are not liable to pay service tax. Therefore, the impugned orders are to be upheld. 5. Heard the parties and considered the submissions. 6. On careful consideration of submissions made by both the sides, we find that the respondents are registered society under The Societies Act, 1860 and working under the Seeds Act, 1966. As per the sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hese activities have lost characteristic of sovereign function. Further, the similar issue came up before this tribunal in the case of Maharashtra State Seed Certification Agency (Supra) wherein this tribunal has observed as under. 9. We have considered the rival submissions. We have also gone through the Seeds Act, 1966 as also the Rules made there under. The said Seeds Act provided for regulating the quality of certain varieties of notified seeds for sale. It is noted that the provisions of the said Act are applicable only for the notified varieties of seeds. Further even in respect of notified varieties of seeds no such certification is required, if the seeds are grown by a person and sold or delivered by him on his own premises ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... performed by the sovereign/public authorities under the provision of law are in the nature of statutory obligations which are to be fulfilled in accordance with law. The fee collected by them for performing such activities is in the nature of compulsory levy as per the provisions of the relevant statute, and it is deposited into the Government Treasury. Such activity is purely in public interest and it is undertaken as mandatory and statutory function. These are not in the nature of service to any particular individual for any consideration. Therefore, such an activity performed by a sovereign/public authority under the provisions of law does not constitute provision of taxable service to a person and, therefore, no service tax is leviable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at of immovable property. Therefore, it is clarified that such services become taxable from the notified date. 11. Keeping in view the said two Circulars as also the provisions of the said Act and the Rules made thereunder, we have no hesitation in holding that the activities of the appellant are not covered by the said Circular dated 8-12-2006 and are chargeable to Service Tax under the Technical Inspection and Certification Service as enumerated in para 2 above. 12. We have also gone through the case laws submitted by the appellant and we do not consider it necessary to discuss the same as the facts, nature of service, implementation authorities in those cases are entirely different. 13. We however note that the said ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Section 11D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are upheld. Therefore, we hold that the activity undertaken by the respondents are not a sovereign function and the respondents are liable to pay service tax on their activity under category of "Technical Inspection Clarification Services". 7. We also observed that the show cause notice have been issued by the invoking extended period of limitation, the demand' of extended period of limitation is not sustainable as there was no mala-fide intention of the respondents not to pay service tax in the light of the clarification issue by the Commissioner of Servicer Tax Ahmadabad on 27-09-2006, wherein it has been clarified as under. Para (2): Office of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
