TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 990
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o incur expenses in the course of providing the taxable service. Department received some information from the Income Tax Department based whereupon the department observed that the appellant has rendered taxable service during the financial year 2013-14 and 2014-15 but has not paid the service tax. No explanation was tendered by the appellant at the investigation stage. Accordingly relying on the above, a show cause notice No. 6015 dated 18.10.2018 was served upon the appellant proposing the recovery of service tax of Rs. 4,91,762/- on the gross taxable value received by the appellant during the aforesaid two years. The recovery was proposed along with the interest and the penalty. The said Show Cause Notice was initially adjudicated vide ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Rohan Motors Ltd. Vs CCE [2021 (45) GSTL 315 (Tri)] The demand on this count is prayed to be set aside. 4. With respect to the demand on the amount received as commission, learned Counsel has though acknowledged that the amount of commission is part of the consideration, of the gross amount received towards rendering the taxable services. But has laid emphasis upon the notification No. 33/12-ST dated 20.6.2012. It is submitted that the amount received in both the financial year in question, since is less than Rs. 10 lakh, by virtue of the said Notification, the appellant is entitled for the exemption in terms of said Notification. It is submitted that the adjudicating authority has failed to consider the said notification. The o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ferred by the Department, thus said findings have attained finality. 7. Coming to the confirmation of demand on the amount of discount received by the appellant from M/s. Obsurge Biotech Ltd. it is observed that the said demand has been confirmed on the ground that the impugned service did not find mentioned in the negative list of service Section 66D of the Act thereof as was amended with effect from 01.07.2012. However, I observe that the Adjudicating Authority has proceeded on the presumption that the amount in question has been obtained as consideration received for providing the taxable service. There is no denial that the appellant was providing taxable service but the impugned amount is the amount of discount. Hence, it was for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as the issue of discount is concerned. Hence, I have no reason to differ from the findings. It is accordingly, held that demand of service tax on the amount of discount received by the appellant has wrongly been confirmed by the adjudicating authority. Same is accordingly liable to be set aside. 9. Coming to the issue of demand of service tax on the amount of commission received by the appellant, there is no denial on the part of the appellant that it was rendering the taxable service as that of pure agent by entering into the agreement with M/s. Obsurge Biotech Ltd. The agreement clarifies that the amount received as commission was very much the part of the amount of consideration received for providing the said services. However, as b....