TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 670
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals-I), Chennai. 2.1 Briefly stated the facts are that the appellants are engaged in the manufacture and export of textile made ups. In order to procure export orders, the appellants have incurred expenditure in the form of payment of commission to overseas agents. It was noticed that the appellants have not discharged the Service Tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services'. 2.2 Consequently, Show Cause Notice No. 201/2011 dated 12.04.2011 was issued, demanding Service Tax of Rs.16,92,458/- for the period from April 2006 to September 2010. After the due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of Service Tax along with appropriate interest and also imposed ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal No. 53/2013 dated 17.05.2013 which demanded Service Tax of Rs.16,92,458/- along with interest and also imposed penalties under Section 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 2.5 A scrutiny of the impugned order dated 29.12.2016 reveals that the appellate authority has rejected the appeal of the assessee exporter as the decision in the case of Aravind A Traders Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2016 (44) STR 264] has been appealed against by the Department in the Hon'ble Apex Court and the appeal was admitted. The Lower Adjudicating Authorities have upheld that services received by the appellant from the foreign agents does not relate to any of the four specified purposes in the Notification No. 14/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 such as agricu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....abrics and not in textile processing. 5. Heard both sides and considered the submissions made in the grounds of appeal and also during the course of hearing before the Tribunal. 6. The only issue involved in this appeal to be decided is whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 14/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004 or not? 7. The issue is no more res integra as in a catena of judgments which are identically placed, the Tribunal Chennai has held that textile exporters who have paid overseas agency commission to promote their exports are eligible for the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 14/2004-ST dated 10.09.2004. As detailed in Paragraph 3, in all these cases, the demands were set aside on merits as well ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejected their plea on the ground that the said exemption is applicable to the input services related to textile processing. The period involved in all these appeals relates to post-18.4.2006. It is relevant to reproduce the Notification No. 14/2004-ST dt. 10.9.2004 as under :- "Service tax exemption to specified services in relation to Business auxiliary service In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 93 of the Finance Act, 1994 (32 of 1994), the Central Government, being satisfied that it is necessary in the public interest so to do, hereby exempts taxable service provided to a client by any person in relation to the business auxiliary service, insofar as it relates to - a) procurement ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the overseas agents is in respect of service provided by that agent to the appellant to export its goods and thereby sales is promoted. That is an activity incidental or auxiliary to processing of textile goods and covered by Business Auxiliary Service and Clause (d) of the notification extracted above covers the case of the appellant bringing the export promotion activity abroad as incidental and auxiliary to the activity of production as is meant by Section 65 (19) of Finance Act, 1994. Appellants are accordingly entitled to the benefit of exemption Notification No. 14/2004 and not liable to the payment of service tax under reverse charge. 7. It is also relevant to state that appellants being the exporter of textile made ups a....