2019 (2) TMI 139

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....AR) For the Respondent Per Bench The appellant is registered with department for providing the taxable service of commission agent falling under the category of Business Auxiliary service. They were appointed as an indenting agent of M/s. Lanxess India Private Ltd. for procuring orders for the chemicals manufactured by the latter. In consideration of the procurement of orders, appellants recei....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....of law. In adjudication, the original authority vide an order dt. 11.09.2009 confirmed the demand with interest and imposed equal penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. He also imposed penalty of Rs. 5000/- under Section 77(2) ibid. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the original authority. Hence the appellants are before this forum. 2. Today when the matter came up....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... CST Chennai. 3. Heard Ld. A.R Shri B.Balamurugan who supports the impugned order. 4. Heard both sides and have gone through the facts. We find that the Ld. Advocate is correct in his assertion that the issue has already been decided in favour of the assessee in the Tribunal's decision vide Final Order No.41876 I 2018 dt.25.06.2018 in the case of Jayem Impex Pvt. Ltd. Vs CST Chennai relied u....