TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appellants denied tax exemptions for sugarcane services linked to manufacturing process</h1> <h3>AMRUT SANJIVANI SUGARCANE TRANSPORT P. LTD. Versus CCE. & C., AURANGABAD</h3> AMRUT SANJIVANI SUGARCANE TRANSPORT P. LTD. Versus CCE. & C., AURANGABAD - 2014 (36) S.T.R. 200 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:- Classification of services under 'Business Auxiliary Service' for sugarcane harvesting and transportation services- Eligibility for exemption under Notification 13/2003-S.T. and Notification 14/2004-S.T.- Applicability of 'pure agent' concept in relation to Service Tax liabilityAnalysis:Classification of services under 'Business Auxiliary Service' for sugarcane harvesting and transportation services:The appellants provided sugarcane harvesting and transportation services to a sugar factory, which the Revenue classified under 'Business Auxiliary Service' for Service Tax purposes. The Revenue imposed Service Tax demands and penalties on the appellants, which were confirmed by the lower appellate authority. The appellants contended that they were eligible for exemptions under specific notifications due to dealing with agricultural produce. The Revenue argued that the services provided were not directly related to agriculture but to the sugar factory, making them ineligible for the exemptions. The Tribunal held that the appellants did not qualify for the exemptions and were not acting as pure agents, as they were engaged in the service provision to the sugar factory, not the harvesting or transport contractors.Eligibility for exemption under Notification 13/2003-S.T. and Notification 14/2004-S.T.:The appellants claimed exemption under Notification 13/2003-S.T. for services related to the sale or purchase of agricultural produce and under Notification 14/2004-S.T. for services related to agriculture inputs. The Tribunal found that the services provided, involving sugarcane harvesting and transportation to a sugar factory, did not align with the criteria specified in the notifications. The Tribunal concluded that the services were not directly linked to agriculture but to the manufacturing process at the sugar factory, thereby disqualifying the appellants from the exemptions.Applicability of 'pure agent' concept in relation to Service Tax liability:The appellants argued that they acted as pure agents on behalf of the harvesting and transport contractors, thereby not liable to pay Service Tax. However, the Revenue contended that the appellants were earning commissions on the services provided, indicating they were not acting as pure agents. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of the services rendered and the relationship between the appellants, the contractors, and the sugar factory. It was determined that the appellants were not functioning as pure agents but as service providers to the sugar factory, leading to the imposition of a pre-deposit requirement for the Service Tax adjudged against them.In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the appellants to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the Service Tax adjudged against them, with the balance amount waived upon compliance, and recovery stayed during the pendency of the appeals.
TaxTMI 