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>Appellate Tribunal reverses Commissioner's service tax order, upholds Joint Commissioner's decision.</h1> <h3>M/s Ashoka Sales Versus Commr. Of C. Ex. & S. Tax, Patna</h3> The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA set aside the Commissioner's order and reinstated the Joint Commissioner's decision in a case concerning a service ... Validity of Revisional Order of Commissioner (Patna)- Section 84 of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that:- The dispute is only with reference to the service tax demand totaling to ₹ 5,86,019/-. Relief for such amount has been granted by the Joint Commissioner, but the ld. Commissioner has taken the view that such relief was not given appropriately and hence, the demand for service tax is justified. From the nature of the amounts it is fairly obvious that such amounts cannot be considered as consideration for the services rendered. These amounts are having no financial effect. The impugned order set aside and the order passed by the ld. Joint Commissioner is reinstated - appeal allowed. Issues:Challenge to Order-in-Original No.10-ST/Section/84/Comr./2008 dated 31.10.2008 - Revision power exercised by Commissioner - Demand of service tax on commission - Appeal seeking to set aside Order-in-Revision and reinstate Joint Commissioner's order.Analysis:1. Background: The appeal challenged the Order-in-Original No.10-ST/Section/84/Comr./2008 dated 31.10.2008, where the Commissioner(Patna) revised the Joint Commissioner's order regarding service tax demand on commission received by the appellant.2. Facts: The appellant had agreements with customers including M/s. Birla Corporation Ltd. for services like Clearing and Forwarding, Goods Transport, and Commission Agent services. The Joint Commissioner upheld a demand of &8377; 3,91,180/- only, dropping the rest. The Commissioner, however, confirmed the full demand, leading to the appeal.3. Appellant's Submissions: The appellant's advocate argued against including certain amounts for service tax, such as reimbursement expenses, selling commission, and transportation charges. The advocate contended that the appellant was not liable for service tax on selling commission and that transportation charges were separately billed and not taxable.4. Revenue's Response: The Revenue reiterated the Commissioner's order justifying the service tax demand.5. Court's Evaluation: The dispute centered on the service tax demand of &8377; 5,86,019/-. The Joint Commissioner had granted relief on various grounds, which the Commissioner disagreed with. The Court analyzed each deduction point by point, agreeing with the Joint Commissioner's reasoning for granting relief.6. Decision: After reviewing the facts and arguments, the Court set aside the Commissioner's order and reinstated the Joint Commissioner's decision. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, including the background, facts, arguments presented by both sides, the court's evaluation, and the final decision reached by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT KOLKATA.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
