TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 474
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Auxiliary Service'' for the commission received by them from M/S Thomas Cook for the purpose of restricted money changing business in their premises. It is seen that as per an agreement dated 02.11.2005, Thomas Cook appointed appellant for carrying out restricted money change business in the hotel premises and foreign exchange was surrendered to M/s Thomas Cook and appellant used to get an amount as an incentive. Both the lower authorities held that the activity of receiving an amount from Thomas cook would be covered under the service tax net, as commission received is chargeable to tax under 'Business Auxiliary Services.' 3. Learned counsel would take us through the order-in-original, the impugned order and the agreement entered by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the appellant would not fall under this category of services. It is her submission that the appellant is not in the business of money exchange and the activity of money exchange is incidental to the main activity of hospitality industry, hence it would not be taxable under service tax liability. It is her submission that appellant has already discharged the service tax liability and interest thereof. On limitation, it is her submission that appellant, could have entertained a bona-fide belief that they were are not in the business of money exchange but that being incidental to the main activity no service tax liability arises. Hence the demands which have been raised beyond the extended period of limitation are liable to be set aside. 4. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the category 'Business Auxiliary services', as the appellant is acting as agent of Thomas Cook, and it is very clear from the closure of agreement that appellant has been given restricted money exchange agency by Thomas Cook India Ltd. (from the authorization they have received for engaging in money exchange). 6. The point of the learned counsel that they are mandated to only exchange the money on a authorization from Thomas Cook is requirement on the Law, we find that this submission may not carry the case of the appellant any further, in as much that, undisputedly appellant are acting as an agent of Thomas Cook India Ltd. We find that appellant has no case on merits. 7. On limitation, we find that appellant has a case in their favor in ....