Tribunal's Decision on Service Tax Demand for Commission Paid on Reverse Charge Basis

The Tribunal set aside the demand for service tax on commission paid on a reverse charge basis before 19.04.2006 due to the introduction of Section 66A. It determined that dehydrated onions did not qualify as agricultural produce under Notification No. 13/2003-ST and that Notification No. 14/2004-ST did not apply to the services provided. The Tribunal upheld the demand post-18.04.2006, with penalties revised under Section 78. The appeal was partly allowed based on these findings.

---

---

Issues:
Demand of service tax on commission paid on reverse charge basis; Applicability of Notifications No. 13/2003-ST and No. 14/2004-ST; Invocation of extended period in the second show cause notice.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against the demand of service tax on commission paid on a reverse charge basis. The appellant argued that prior to 18.04.2006, when Section 66A was introduced, there could be no liability under reverse charge basis, citing the decision of the Bombay High Court. They claimed exemption under Notification No. 14/2004-ST for services related to agricultural products. The appellant also argued for the benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, for penalties and relied on the decision of the Supreme Court regarding the limitation period for the second show cause notice.

The Tribunal found that demand for the period before 19.04.2006 was not sustainable as per Section 66A and set it aside. Regarding Notification No. 13/2003-ST, it was observed that dehydrated onions did not qualify as agricultural produce under the notification's definition. The Tribunal also noted that Notification No. 14/2004-ST was not applicable to the services provided by the appellant.

The appellant's claim for the invocation of the extended period in the second show cause notice was analyzed. The Tribunal referred to a decision involving a similar issue and observed that in cases of fraud or suppression of facts, the extended period could be rightly invoked. It was concluded that for the period after 18.04.2006, the demand was upheld, and the penalty imposed under Section 78 was revised to be equal to the confirmed demand. The appeal was partly allowed based on the above findings.

---