TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 996
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....stics (I) Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Color Barcode Pvt. Ltd. and provided certain services as per the contracts. The consideration received from the said companies was accounted as commission in the books of accounts.Revenue opined that the commission received by the appellants to be the consideration towards the commission and brokerage service rendered by the appellants to their clients and the same is chargeable under "Business Auxiliary Service" chargeable to Service tax. A show cause notice dated 24.04.2008 was issued to the appellants demanding Service tax of Rs. 07,96,622/-. The demand was confirmed, by the joint commissioner, vide Order-in-Original dated 30.04.2009, along with interest and penalty. On the appeal preferred by the company, Com....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on which is a specific percentage of the total consideration charged by the companies to their own clients . He further submits that even if it is assumed that the services rendered by them are taxable under "Business Auxiliary Service", the appellant is eligible for the benefit available to sub service providers as per department circular F/No. 341/43/96-TRU dated 31.10.1996 and trade notice No. 1/2000 dated 24/07/2000. 5. Shri Shivam Syal, Authorized Representative for the Revenue submits that the appellants themselves submitted, vide letter dated 16.06.2008, that the commission income received from two companies was for the services rendered, on their behalf to their customers, in management of distribution and logistics; it is importan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n Kopran Ltd. 2009 (16) STR 279 (T) and in Kajaria Ceramics ltd. 2005 (191) ELT 20 (SC), it was held that the circular can be read as a contemporaneous understanding and exposition of the intention and purpose of the notification. He further submits that the appellants claim that the show cause notice did not specify the sub-heading under which "Business Auxiliary Service'' falls and thus the show cause notice requires to be set aside, is wrong . He relies on M/s Golden Handling Works Final Order dated 16.10.2017 by CESTAT New Delhi. He further submits that in the present case, it was specifically mentioned that the appellants were rendering the work as a commission agent. He relies on ITC ltd. 2014 (36) STR 481 (DEL) and submits th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent to have a look at the relevant clauses of the agreement which are as follows: (i) In respect of Tiger Logistics, the offer letter dated 10.04.2005 informs that M/s Tiger Logistics are pleased to appoint the appellants for managing distribution and logistics of their above-mentioned clients as per the discussions held in their office between the appellant and Mrs. Rakhi Marwah of M/s Tiger Logistics Limited and that M/s Tiger Logistics would give 6.5% of the total billing to the parties mentioned therein in respect of management of their distribution and logistics. (ii) The agreement with Color Bar which is titled "Business Support Agreement" mentions as under "Support Service Clause" CCPL hereby appoints LPL as its facilitat....