2016 (10) TMI 656

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994 and included 'commission agent' within the definition in section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994. Government of India also issued notification no. 13/2003-ST dated 20th June 2003 exempting services provided by 'commission agent' from tax. The explanation therein defined 'commission agent' as a person who 'causes sale or purchase of goods, on behalf of another person for a consideration which is based on the quantum of such sale or purchase'. This notification was amended vide notification no. 8/2004-ST dated 9th July 2004 restricting the exemption only to 'commission agents' in relation to sale or purchase of agriculture produce. 2. In the meanwhile, Department of Revenue issued circular no. 66/15/2003-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e procedural, by order dated 15th December 2010, remanded the matter back to the original authority for deciding the claim on merits. The outcome is not known. 3. Following the limited scope of exemption available to 'commission agents' after 9th July 2004 and in view of investigations initiated by Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, M/s Blue Chip Investments Centre Ltd paid Rs. 44,41,574/- 'under protest' by challan dated 28th February 2008 to cover 'trail fee' and 'out of pocket' expenses excluded from the computation of tax liability on the earlier occasion as well as the receipts on account of mutual fund distribution for the period from 1st April 2004 to 8th July 2004. Thereafter, a refund claim for the entire amount o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Act, 1994 and that the action of the original authority in attempting to reclassify the services is not correct in law. It was also submitted that the tax had been paid 'under protest' before issue of notice by Directorate of Central Excise Intelligence and hence the rejection on the grounds of pendency of outcome of that investigation is incorrect. 6. Learned Authorized Representative stated that the notice issued by Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence was yet to be adjudicated and sought that the matter be kept in abeyance till the outcome was known. Learned Counsel for appellant drew attention to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No 6911/2005 disposing off appeal of Revenue in re M/s Karvy Stock ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... in a manner that is contrary to the principles of natural justice and in direct contravention of the circular of Department of Revenue issued in 2007. 9. In the decision of this Tribunal in Persistent Systems Ltd v Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Pune III [Appeal no. ST/614/2010] it was noted: "6.    Justification afforded for the act of returning the claim appears to flow from it being 'premature.' Implicit in such a description is the existence of a time period prior to which no claim can be preferred. Again, the statute does not prescribe a near deadline for filing claims. 'Premature' is, therefore, inexplicable and incomprehensible in this context. Such a description would be apt only if an application ha....