9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Advocate, had an occasion to examine an identical issue wherein the demand was raised on the assessee therein, inter alia, under the categories of Auctioneer s Service and Business Support Service . After considering the rival contentions, this Bench has observed that The marketing and other services rendered by the appellant to their farmer members in selling their agricultural produce through tender process would not be coming under Auctioneer s Service under Section 65 (105)(zzzr) of the Finance Act, 1994. The impugned order lacks merit, for which reason the same deserves to be set aside - Appeal allowed. - MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ril 2012 to June 2012 respectively. 2.3 Both the above Statements of Demand were considered for common adjudication and a common Order-in-Original Sl. No. 22/2014 JC(ST) dated 28.04.2014 was passed, whereby the adjudicating authority has confirmed the demands proposed therein, along with appropriate interest, apart from imposition of penalties. 3. Both the assessee and the Revenue preferred appeals before the first appellate authority, who vide Order-in-Appeal Nos. 168 168-A/2014-ST dated 06.08.2014 has rejected the assessee s appeal and allowed the Revenue s appeal, thereby upholding the above Order-in-Original, except for ordering modification of the penalties imposed. 4. It is against this order that the present appeal has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervice as confirmed and upheld in the impugned order, are correct in law? 8.1 We have also gone through the various orders of this very Bench that were relied upon by the Ld. Consultant during the course of arguments and we find the assertion of the Ld. Consultant to be correct inasmuch as similar issues have been considered and decided in those orders of this very Bench. In the case of M/s. Namakkal Agricultural Producers Coop. Marketing Society (supra), this Bench has observed as under: - 5.1 The main issue which requires consideration in the instant case is as to whether the appellants are rendering Auctioneer s Service in respect of marketing and other services rendered for selling agricultural produce of its farmer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant has been borrowing money from their bank but it does not mean that the appellant is supporting service of the bank. They are borrowing money from the bank on their account and in turn lending it to their members. In view of the above, we find that demands on both these counts are not sustainable and need to be set aside and we do so. Consequently, the demand of interest and penalties also deserve to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. We find that the facts for our consideration in these two appeals are identical. The marketing and other services rendered by the appellant to their farmer members in selling their agricultural produce through tend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
