Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Welcome to TaxTMI

We're migrating from taxmanagementindia.com to taxtmi.com and wish to make this transition convenient for you. We welcome your feedback and suggestions. Please report any errors you encounter so we can address them promptly.

Bars
Logo TaxTMI
>
×

By creating an account you can:

Feedback/Report an Error
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home /

2017 (2) TMI 1046

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing agents to undertake clearing and forwarding services of the goods procured by them from the respondents. The respondents were paying service tax on reverse charge basis for the service rendered by BPL in the category of C & F Agent. The department conducted investigations into the arrangement entered into between the two companies. It was observed that M/s. BPL were responsible for sale of the respondent s product including marketing, advertising and other activities and the expenses for such activities would be paid by the respondent at the agreed rates. On completion of investigations, a show-cause notice was issued to the respondent proposing recovery of service tax amounting to Rs. 1,29,11,330/- payable on the commission paid to M/s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... heard Shri Parashiva Murthy, learned AR for the Revenue. He submitted that Commissioner (A) has dropped the entire demand only by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble CESTAT in the Mahavir Generics case (supra). The said decision has subsequently been overruled by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court reported in 2010 (17) STR 225 (Kar.). Consequently, he prayed for the impugned order may be set aside. None appeared for the respondent. We also note that nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent even in the earlier instances when the case was listed for hearing. Since, this is the very old pending case, we take up the issue for decision on the basis of available records. 4. The dispute pertains to the period 16.7.1997 to 31.3.....