9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 939X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , demand under Business Auxiliary Service cannot be made. It is incumbent upon Revenue to show that said services are classifiable under Business Auxiliary Service - demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/87878/13 - A/89357/17/STB - Dated:- 31-8-2017 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member(Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) None for the Appellants Shri. Dilip Shinde, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER Per : Raju The appellant, M/s. Shri Dnyaneshwar Trust are public charitable trust. They are in appeal against confirmation of demand of service tax on supervision charges collected from sugar factory under head of Business Auxiliary Service. Demand has been confirmed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rusal of show cause notice indicates that exact activity conducted for which supervision charges are collected has not been identified. Para 2 and 3 and 4.1 of the show cause notice are relevant in this regard which read as under: 2. On scrutiny of the balance sheets maintained by the Service Provider, it is noticed the they are providing services only to Ws Shri Dnyaneshwar SSK Ltd Dnyaneshwarnagar, Bhenda S.K., Tat. Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar. The noticee is engaged in providing manpower transport of goods services to the service recipient, for sugarcane harvesting and transportation thereof from the farmers' fields to the sugar factory. They are paying service tax on labour work like harvesting and cane loading and unloading, sug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Dnyaneshwar SSK P.O. Bhenda, Newasa, Dist. Ahmednagar (service recipient) was recorded under the provisions of Section 14 of the CE Act 1944, read with Section 83 of the Finance Act 1994, on 29.3.2012 wherein he interalia, stated that in the Financial year from 2007-08 to 2010-11 they have paid ₹ 10,30,35,562/-to M/s Dnyaneshwar Trust P.O.Bhenda as Supervision Charges detailed as under:- Sr.No. Financial Year Supervision Charges 1 2007-08 Rs.1,54,41,802/- 2 2008-09 Rs.3,04,28,587/- 3 2009-10 Rs.2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... received certain amount under the head of Supervision Charges' from sugar factory during the period 2006-07 to 2010-11. However they did not discharge Service Tax liability on the amount of Supervision Charges , which is alleged to be covered under the category of Business Auxiliary Service . The contention of the service provider in their defense is that the `supervision charges' are in the nature of remuneration to make expenditure incurred by their trust for making payment to their staff, therefore this amount does not qualify to be termed as value of taxable service under the head of Business Auxiliary Services . 10.2 1 find that it is not in dispute in this case that the Supervision Charges received by the service pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice provider are related with the aforesaid activities chargeable to Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. The service provider is therefore, required to discharge service tax liability on the Supervision Charges amount of supervision charges. Assessee, in their defense, has contended that the amount received as Supervision Charges is for administrative expenses of the trust, to meet the remuneration of their staff members. 1 find that there is no provision under the Finance Act, 1994 exempting service tax on any amount received by an organization for meeting their administrative expenses. Thus, this contention of the service provider is not sustainable and they are required to pay service tax on Supervision Charg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
