9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1182X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther demand has been raised after October, 2008 - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that this fact has not been denied by the Adjudicating Authority as well as by the Commissioner (Appeal) in his Order-In-Appeal. We also find that this Tribunal in case of M/s. SNQS International Socks Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CGST C. Ex [ 2023 (11) TMI 898 - CESTAT CHENNAI] , which has also been endorsed by the Apex Court [ 2024 (3) TMI 1045 - SC ORDER] , has decided similar issue in favour of the assesse. We also take note of the fact that the learned Advocate has also submitted certain extra document including certain copies of the purchase orders which indicated that the order were placed directly to foreign supplier and the appellant has relied upon these evidences to support his stand that they have not been working as intermediary rather they have worked as an agent for sale and promotion of the product in India and thus the exported the services to their principals situated outside India. We feel that all the facts were not available with the Adjudicating Authority at the time of adjudicating the matter. We therefore, remand back the matter for the fresh consideration and direct the Adjudicating Authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g for the payment of the Service Tax of Rs. 1,48,17,301/- under Section 73 (1) of the Finance Act, 1994. The show cause notice has also invoked the provisions of Section 75 of the Finance Act, 1994 and penal provision of Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 1.2. The matter has been adjudicated vide impugned Order-In-Original dated 26.04.2017 where under all the charges of the show cause notice has been confirmed by the learned Adjudicating Authority. The appellant have approached the office of the Commissioner (Appeal), however they do not succeed in their appeal at the level of the Commissioner (Appeal) also, who vide his order in Appeal dated 25th September, 2017 have rejected the contentions raised by the appellant. 2. Learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that appellant have entered into various agreement with companies located outside India to market and promote sale of their products. It has been the contention of the learned Advocate that the services have been provided by the appellant for companies located outside India and services have also been used by the recipient of the service outside India. 2.1. It has been the contention of learned Advocate th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision of service between two or more persons but arranges or facilitates a supply of goods. On perusal of the agreement, it would be found that the head office of the appellant company is required to promote the branded products of the companies situated outside India, on the basis of information, details etc., the companies situated outside India send their products to the customers situated in India and for this purpose the head office of the appellant company receives the commission @5% based on the FOB value for sale of products. It is thus submitted that the head office of the noticee company has not provided Intermediary services in relation to provision of service between two or more persons but arranges or facilitates a supply of goods. In view thereof, it is submitted that even if it is assumed but not admitted that the noticee company is required to pay service tax, in such a case also, the demand up to 30-09-2014 is not sustainable as Rule 9 of the POPS Rules, 2012 did not prescribe the person who arranges or facilitates a provision of a supply of goods, between two or more persons. (ii) It is also further submitted that vide Notification No. 14/2014 ST dated 11-07 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from April to September, 2008 was also issued. 2.7. Learned Advocate has pointed out that the demand for the earlier period has already been raised and demand for the subsequent period has been raised beyond normal period prescribed under the provisions of Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. It is submitted that there is no suppression of any facts with an intention to evade Service Tax and since all the facts were in the knowledge of the department, it was wrong on the part of the Adjudicating Authority to confirm the demand invoking the extended period of limitation. 2.8. The learned Advocate has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Nizam Sugar Factory Vs. CCE reported under 2006 (197) ELT 465 (SC). and M/s. ECE Industries Vs. CCE reported under 2004 (164) ELT 236 (SC). and Gujarat Ambuja Exports Limited Vs. Union of India reported under 2012 (269) ELT 159 (Guj.). 2.9. It has been contention of learned Advocate that entire demand is barred by limitation in the present show cause notice. 3. We have also heard the learned Departmental Representative who has reiterated the findings is given in the impugned Order-In-Original and Order-In-Appeal. 3.1. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
