TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 187
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....half of the appellant, at the outset submits that service of Commission Agent is on behalf of the principal, cannot be treated as branded service as for providing a Commission Agent Service there is no need of using the brand name of their client. Therefore, denial of exemption is illegal and incorrect. He placed reliance on the following judgments:- (a) Reetika Cable vs. Commissioner of CGST, Chandigarh - 2-21 (53) GSTL 261 (Tri. Chan.) (b) Heaven Vision vs. CCE, Chandigarh - 2020 (37) GSTL 206 (Tri. Chan.) (c) SOTC Travels Services Pvt. Limited vs. Pr. Commissioner of C. Ex. Delhi-I - 2021 (55) GSTL 332 (Tri. Del.) (d) Bharat Hotels Limited vs. CCE (Adjudication) - 2018 (12) GSTL 368 (Del.) 3. Shri P. Ganesan, learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides and perusal of record, we find that there is no dispute about the nature of service. The appellant has provided Commission Agent service to their clients. The appellant as a commission by mediates between their client and customer of the client, while providing commission agent service a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of these cases, what is in fact affixed to the jute bags is the name of the procurer agency in question such as the FCI, the State Government of Punjab and so on, the crop year, the name of the jute mill concerned, its BIS certification number and the statement that the foodgrains are manufactured in India. It is clear that all the aforesaid markings have, on the pain of penalty, to be done by the manufacturers of the jute bags, given the Jute Control Order and the requisition orders made thereunder. Obviously, such markings are made by compulsion of law, which are meant for identification, monitoring and control by Governmental agencies involved in the PDS. Neither do such markings enhance the value of the jute bags in any manner nor is it the intention of the appellants to so enhance the value of jute bags, which is necessary if Excise duty is to be imposed. This flows from the expression "...for the purpose of indicating, or so as to indicate, a connection in the course of trade between the product and some person using such name or mark...". In the present case, the markings on the jute bags are not for the purpose of indicating a connection in the course of trade between the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fication." In view of the above cited judicial pronouncements, we hold that the appellants are not providing any branded services, therefore, the appellants are entitled to avail the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005 and Notification No. 33/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012. (b) Whether the extended period of limitation is invocable or not? We find that the appellants were under bona fide belief that they are not liable to pay service tax as they are entitled for benefit of exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005 and Notification No. 33/2012-S.T., dated 20-6-2012, therefore, they did not pay service tax. Moreover, there was confusion in the industry during the relevant period whether the appellants are liable to pay service tax or the MSO liable to pay service tax on their activity, in that circumstances, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the appellants. Therefore, we hold that the extended period is not invocable as held by the Tribunal in the case of Trans Yamuna Communication Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Delhi - 2017 (52) S.T.R. 31 (Tri. - Del.) wherein this Tribunal observed as under :- "4.I have heard both....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the gross value of the services provided by them or not? We find that in terms of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994, the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the gross value of subscription received by them. The said view having the support of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Intercontinental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under :- "24. In this hue, the expression 'such' occurring in Section 67 of the Act assumes importance. In other words, valuation of taxable services for charging service tax, the authorities are to find what is the gross amount charged for providing 'such' taxable services. As a fortiori, any other amount which is calculated not for providing such taxable service cannot a part of that valuation as that amount is not calculated for providing such 'taxable service'. That according to us is the plain meaning which is to be attached to Section 67 (unamended, i.e., prior to May 1, 2006) or after its amendment, with effect from, May 1, 2006. Once this interpretation is to be given to Section 67, it hardly needs to be emphasised that Rule 5 of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....penalty is imposable on the appellants. (c) the appellants are liable to pay service tax on the gross value of services received by them and is entitled to avail Cenvat credit of service tax paid on the amount remitted to the MSO. (d) The adjudicating authority shall quantify the demand for the period within the period of limitation on production of data of services provided by the appellant of cable service to the subscribers within the 30 days of receipt of this order on which the appellant shall pay the service tax, if payable along with interest. 8. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for quantification of demand as above. 9. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed by way of remand." From the above decision, which has relied upon Tribunal's decisions, it is settled that in case of providing a Commission Agent servicer, is not a branded service. 5. In the case of Heaven Vision (supra) while dealing with service of Business Auxiliary Service, passed the following decision:- "The appellant is in appeal against the impugned order wherein the benefit of exemption Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated.1-3-2005 has been denied to them. ....