9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 272X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of availing exemption under Notification No. 13/2003 - appellant is eligible for the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme and therefore no penalty is imposable – appeal is allowed in part X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d tire services provided by, them were exempt from payment of service tax in terms of Notification No. 13/2003- S.T. dated 20-6-2003 during the period 1-7-2003 to 8-7-2004. This ground was not raised by them before the adjudicating authority and have been raised for first time before me. The Commissioner (Appeals) can allow any fresh ground not raised before the adjudicating authority. Therefore, I examine this appellant's contention of the commission earned by them were exempt from payment of service tax in terms of Notification No. 13/2003- S.T. dated 20-6-2003. The appellants have not disputed that services provided by them falls under the category "business auxiliary services". Business auxiliary services are brought under service tax n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion agent" means a person who causes sale or purchase of goods, oil behalf of another person for consideration which is based on the quantum of such sale or purchase." 14. The person working as a commission agent have been covered under the definition of "business auxiliary service" and the commission agents were exempted from payment of service tax under Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. dated 20-6-2003 during the period from 1-7-2003 to 8-7-2004. For the purpose of exemption under Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. dated 20-6-2003, commission agent has been defined in the notification itself and the commission agent who causes sale or purchase of "goods" were exempt from payment of service tax. The definition of commission agent has been given in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9/2004. CX. 4 dated 23-9-2004, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rejected it on the ground that the appellants had obtained service tax registration on 23-6-2004 and therefore the benefit of Amnesty Scheme cannot be extended. The appellants cited many decisions in support of their claim that their case is covered by Amnesty Scheme. However, I find that the following two cases are relevant. 1. Rakes Rao v. CCE, Nasik [2008 (9) S.T.R. 478 (Tri. Mumbai)] 2. CCE, Kanpur v. Anto Mal Jain [2006 (3) S.T.R. 651 (Tri. Del.)] 4. Therefore, I hold that the appellant is eligible for the benefits of the Amnesty Scheme and therefore no penalty is imposable. In view of the above discussions, it is held that the services and the interest paid by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
