9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 701X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lubricants to dealers of the appellant and to permit the use of brand name 'Toyota' on the lubricants. The appellants received a commission for such permission granted. The department issued a show-cause notice dated 31.5.2005 proposing to tax the commission received by the appellants under 'Clearing and Forwarding Agency' Service. The Joint Commissioner vide Order No.22/2005 dated 30.11.2005 has discharged the show-cause notice. Commissioner of Service Tax in terms of power under Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 has issued a show-cause notice dated 22.10.2007. The learned Commissioner of Central Excise vide Order-in-Original No.96/2007-Commr. dated 30.11.2007 has confirmed the demand holding that in view of the Tribunal's judgment in t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eciding the issue vide Order-in-Original No.96/2001 dated 27.11.2007 has traversed beyond the scope of the Order-in-Original and Review show-cause notice and confirmed the demand holding that the appellants neither caused the sale or purchase of the goods manufactured and supplied by these two companies nor dealt with the title to such goods, they cannot be construed as commission agent in terms of explanation provided under Notification No.13/2003 dated 20.6.2003-ST and therefore, they are not eligible for the exemption in terms of that Notification. It is also pertinent to see that the learned Commissioner has in para 13 of the impugned order has held that in my considered view, the services provided by the appellants for the two companie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry Service provided by a commission agent is enshrined in the Notification. Therefore, in view of the Tribunal's ruling in Chahabria Marketing Ltd. vs. CST, Mumbai: 2016 (43) STR 193 (Tri.-Mum.) and Brindco Sales Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi: 2015 (40) STR 986 (Tri.-Del.), any Business Auxiliary Services rendered by them was exempted by the Notification. It can also be seen that the amount received by the appellants was a consideration received for promoting, marketing and sale of products manufactured by two companies as duly observed by the Commissioner in para 10, 12, 13 and 14 of the impugned order. However, the Commissioner has erred in not granting the benefit of exemption Notification. 3. The Authorized Representative has reiterated the find ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
