Commission agent exemption supports complete pre-deposit waiver and interim protection, while suppression-based extended limitation remains unproven.

Commission agents were treated, prima facie, as covered by Notification No. 13/2003-S.T., which exempted such services from service tax under Business Auxiliary Services during the relevant period; the later amendment was stated not to alter the position for the dispute period, supporting complete waiver of pre-deposit. Disclosure in correspondence with the department also weighed against a prima facie finding of suppression, so invocation of the extended limitation period was not justified at the interim stage. On that basis, stay applications were allowed and coercive recovery was stayed pending disposal of the appeals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit in view of Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. dated 20-6-2003. (ii) Whether invocation of the longer period was justified on the ground of suppression of facts.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants had made out a prima facie case for complete waiver of pre-deposit in view of Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. dated 20-6-2003.

Analysis: The services rendered were treated, at least prima facie, as those of commission agents during the relevant period. The notification exempted commission agents from service tax under Business Auxiliary Services for that period, and the subsequent amendment did not affect the position for the period in dispute. On that basis, the appellants were found to have a strong prima facie case on merits.

Conclusion: The appellants were entitled to complete waiver of pre-deposit on a prima facie view.

Issue (ii): Whether invocation of the longer period was justified on the ground of suppression of facts.

Analysis: The correspondence with the department showed disclosure of the activities, and the record did not support a finding of suppression sufficient to justify the extended limitation period at the interim stage.

Conclusion: Invocation of the longer period was not justified at this stage.

Final Conclusion: The stay applications were allowed and coercive recovery was stayed pending disposal of the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee shows a strong prima facie claim to exemption as a commission agent and disclosure to the department, complete waiver of pre-deposit and interim protection may be granted, and extended limitation is not to be invoked on a mere allegation of suppression.

---