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>Tribunal remands case for re-examination after considering appellant's arguments and directive for additional evidence</h1> <h3>KR. ALLOYS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT</h3> The tribunal remanded the case to the Original Authority for further examination, setting aside the confirmation of Service Tax and penalty by the ... Appellant’s submission is that there was sale of goods and not sale of mutual funds and no services were rendered directly to the client. They also submitted that Service Tax cannot be confirmed as sale of mutual funds will not be attracted under the category of ‘Business Auxiliary Services’ under the shelter of exemption Notification No. 13/2003-S.T - appellant’s submission is that they are sub-agent and the Service Tax liability has been discharged by the principal - Both these pleas are required to be verified by the Original Authority and also the Original Authority has to verify regarding the applicability of Notification No. 13/03-S.T. - appeal is allowed by way of remand Issues:1. Confirmation of Service Tax and penalty by the Commissioner (A), Cochin.2. Discharge of Service Tax liability by another party.3. Sale of goods versus sale of mutual funds.4. Applicability of exemption Notification No. 13/2003-S.T.5. Request for remand of the case for further verification.Analysis:1. The appeal stemmed from the confirmation of Service Tax and penalty by the Commissioner (A), Cochin. The appellant argued that they were a sub-agency for another entity and that the Service Tax liability had been discharged by that entity. They contended that no services were directly rendered to the client and that the sale of mutual funds should not attract Service Tax under 'Business Auxiliary Services.' The appellant also referenced a Delhi Bench case to support their stance.2. The appellant's consultant presented journal vouchers as evidence of the sale of goods for which they received a commission. The consultant argued that the demand for Service Tax could not be upheld based on these transactions.3. The JCDR representing the respondent contended that the matter should be sent back to the Original Authority for verification of the facts presented by the appellant. She highlighted that the evidence now provided was not previously available to the Original Authority and that the applicability of the exemption Notification needed to be verified.4. After considering the submissions, the tribunal decided in favor of remanding the case to the Original Authority for further examination. The tribunal agreed with the consultant's plea for remand, setting aside the impugned order. The Original Authority was instructed to consider all the appellant's arguments regarding the non-leviability of Service Tax concerning the sale of mutual funds and goods. The appellant was directed to provide all relevant evidence to support their claims, and the issues were left open for re-adjudication within a specified timeframe.5. The tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for a fresh decision by the Original Authority, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive review of the facts and evidence presented.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
