9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 505X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owmik, Advocate for the Appellant Shri A.Roy, Authorized Representative for Respondent ORDER The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order demanding service tax from them under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service" in terms of Section 65 (19) (1) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant is a Public Sector Undertaking and was engaged in trading ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here was no service rendered by the appellant to NINL. Pursuant to an Audit of NINL by DGCEI in August, 2005, the appellant obtained legal advice on the demand of the jurisdictional Central Excise authority that the service tax was payable on the payment received from NINL by the appellant and requiring the appellant to make payment thereof. The appellant was advised that the activities carried ou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued and on 23rd January, 2006, a show-cause notice was issued to the appellant to demand service tax for the period 1st July, 2003 to 30th November, 2005 under the category of "Business Auxiliary Service". The payments made by the appellant were appropriated and the balance payment of Rs.62,11,908/- was confirmed against the appellant and penalty of Rs.2,89,11,609/- was imposed. Against the said o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the sale amount. Therefore, they are not liable to pay service tax for the said period. He also relied on the CBEC Circular No.59/8/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003, which clarifies the terms of commission agent and exempted from payment of service tax for the relevant period. Therefore, they are liable to pay service tax. 4. On the other hand, the ld.A.R. for the Revenue, submits that the appellants ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rate of 3% of the sale amount effected by that on behalf of NINL. In that circumstances, the appellant is entitled for benefit of Notification No.13/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003. 7. Therefore, we hold that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax during the period 01.07.2003 to 08.07.2004. 8. In view of this, we do not find any merit in the impugned order demanding service tax amounting to Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
