9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e garments being exported by the appellant to M/s. Bon Prix, Germany. M/s. JPS Trading is rendering the service of a Buying agent for M/s. Bon Prix, Germany. So, the service provider and the service receiver are located in a non-taxable territory. From the facts of the appeal, it is evident that there is neither any written or oral agreement between the appellant and M/s. JPS Trading Company, Dubai. When M/s. JPS Trading Company is a buying agent for M/s. Bon Prix, Germany, it cannot be called simultaneously as a commission agent for the appellant for promoting export of garments. In identical facts in the cases of M/S. ORIGINAL KNIT EXPORTS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST AND CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE [ 2024 (2) TMI 84 - CESTAT CHENNAI] , M/S. HARINI COLOURS VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE [ 2024 (1) TMI 526 - CESTAT CHENNAI] and M/S. VEERA CREATIONS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF GST CENTRAL EXCISE, COIMBATORE [ 2024 (1) TMI 525 - CESTAT CHENNAI] , where the Service Tax demands were confirmed under BAS and TIC and where M/s. JPS Trading Company, Dubai was the buying agent and garments were exported by these appellants to M/s. Bon Prix, Germany, the Tribunal Chennai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . JPS Trading Company, Dubai alleged to be having no permanent establishment in India, the appellant was held liable to pay the Service Tax on Reverse Charge Basis. 2.2 The deductions given by the appellant on the invoice price under various heads is nothing but a commission paid to M/s. JPS Trading Company towards quality inspection and other marketing assistance given by M/s. JPS Trading Company through M/s. Fashion Force, Coimbatore. As the appellant failed to register themselves and pay the Service Tax and also file the ST-3 returns, a Show Cause Notice dated 19.04.2010 was issued demanding Service Tax along with interest and also proposing penalties on the appellant. 2.3 After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of Service Tax along with interest and imposed penalties on the appellant which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 124/2014 dated 18.08.2014. Being aggrieved, the appellant came before the Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 3.1 The Ld. counsel Shri Satish Chandrasekaran representing the appellant have argued and submitted as follows:- i. the discounts cannot be equated with commission for levying Service Tax, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nature of promoting the business of the appellant and so would fall under the category of commission agent and therefore demand of Service Tax has been correctly confirmed. 5. Heard and considered the submissions made by both sides. 6. The only issue that has to be decided in this appeal is whether the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax under Business Auxiliary Service and Technical Inspection and Certification Service or not? 7.1 We find that M/s. JPS Trading Company, Dubai through their Indian office viz., M/s. Fashion Force, Coimbatore is carrying out quality check of the garments being exported by the appellant to M/s. Bon Prix, Germany. M/s. JPS Trading is rendering the service of a Buying agent for M/s. Bon Prix, Germany. So, the service provider and the service receiver are located in a non-taxable territory. From the facts of the appeal, it is evident that there is neither any written or oral agreement between the appellant and M/s. JPS Trading Company, Dubai. When M/s. JPS Trading Company is a buying agent for M/s. Bon Prix, Germany, it cannot be called simultaneously as a commission agent for the appellant for promoting export of garments. 7.2 We find that in identic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. Fashion Force, Tirupur who is liable to collect and pay service tax. It cannot be said that the deductions made in the invoices raised in the name of M/s. Bon Prix, Germany is a payment made to Fashion Force, Tirupur. For these reasons, we find that the demand raised under BAS ‟, Technical Inspection and Certification Service ‟ is without any factual or legal basis. 8. M/s. JPS Trading, Dubai through their agent or their own office in the name of M/s. Fashion Force is carrying out quality check of the garments being exported. M/s. JPS Trading is rendering the service of a buying agent for M/s. Bon Prix, Germany. The service provider and service receiver are thus located in a non-taxable territory. There is neither any written or oral agreement between the Appellant and M/s. JPS Trading, Dubai. When M/s. JPS Trading, Dubai is a buying agent, he cannot be termed as a commission agent for the Appellant promoting export of garments. M/s. JPS Trading service is incidental to his rendering of buying agent service to M/s. Bon Prix, Germany. Whatever, the deductions shown in the export invoice of the Appellant are concerned with the sale transaction between the Appellant and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
