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 rules on service tax exemption, penalties upheld for VHPL services to Venco/VRB customers</h1> <h3>The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Versus Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd.</h3> The Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune Versus Venkateshwara Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. - 2017 (47) S.T.R. 338 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Interpretation of Notification No.13/2003 for exemption of service tax on services provided by VHPL.2. Applicability of extended period for invoking tax demand.3. Invocation of Section 80 of the Finance Act for penalty imposition.4. Determination of liability for service tax on services provided to customers of Venco/VRB.Analysis:1. The appeals involved a dispute regarding the exemption of service tax on services provided by VHPL under Notification No.13/2003. VHPL claimed exemption as a commission agent for services related to promotion, marketing, veterinary services, and laboratory testing. The Tribunal analyzed the nature of services provided by VHPL and concluded that the exemption did not apply to services provided to customers of Venco/VRB, as they were in the nature of customer care services, not sale or purchase of goods.2. The issue of invoking the extended period for tax demand was raised. The Tribunal noted that VHPL had been paying tax on services received from 2004 onwards. The Tribunal held that the extended period could not be invoked for the period before 2004 when VHPL had claimed exemption under Notification No.13/2003. The demand was limited to the services provided to customers of Venco/VRB.3. Regarding the invocation of Section 80 for penalty imposition, the Tribunal found that VHPL had been paying tax on services provided to customers, which were covered under Business Auxiliary Services. The Tribunal concluded that the invocation of Section 80 was incorrect and allowed VHPL's appeal. The penalty equivalent to the revised duty demanded was upheld under Section 78, with no penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994.4. The liability for service tax on services provided to customers of Venco/VRB was determined by the Tribunal. It was clarified that services provided to Venco/VRB did not fall under business auxiliary services, but services provided to their customers did. The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal and confirmed the demand only for services provided to customers of Venco/VRB, while upholding the penalty under Section 78. The appeals were disposed of accordingly on 21/10/2016.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
