TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 113
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-Original No. 44/2014 (ST-ADC) dated 31.03.2014 confirming the demand of Service Tax of Rs.22,39,099/- under Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) and Rs.5,59,819/- under Technical Inspection and Certification (TIC) Service for the period from 18.04.2006 to 30.09.2009 along with interest and imposed penalties. 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that M/s. K. Shethra Exports (the appellant herein) are engaged in the manufacture and export of hosiery garments. They are getting their orders for supply of above goods to M/s. Bon Prix, Germany through M/s. JPS Trading Company, Dubai who is a sourcing and quality monitoring agent of goods shipped to M/s. Bon Prix, Germany. M/s. Fashion Force, Coimbatore is the Indian office of M/s. JPS Trading Company, D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th interest and also proposing penalties on the appellant. 2.3 After due process of law, the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand of Service Tax along with interest and imposed penalties on the appellant which was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-Appeal No. 124/2014 dated 18.08.2014. Being aggrieved, the appellant came before the Tribunal. Hence this appeal. 3.1 The Ld. counsel Shri Satish Chandrasekaran representing the appellant have argued and submitted as follows:- i. the discounts cannot be equated with commission for levying Service Tax, as they are part of the sale transaction and cannot be equated with commission. Sale related discount cannot be taxed under Business Auxiliary Service or Technical Ins....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....TAT, Chennai] iii. Veera Creations Vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Coimbatore [2024 (1) TMI 525-CESTAT, Chennai] 4. The Ld. Authorised Representative Shri Harendra Singh Pal appeared and argued for the Department. He has reiterated the findings of the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 124/2014 dated 18.08.2014. He has pointed out that M/s. JPS Trading Company, Dubai through its local office viz., M/s. Fashion Force was rendering the services to the appellant in promotion of their export orders and also in receiving payments for the goods supplied to M/s. Bon Prix, Germany. M/s. Fashion Force was also found carrying out inspection as to ensure the quality and specifications of the exported goods. The above said activities are in the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Tribunal Chennai have set aside the Service Tax demands raised and also penalty imposed in favour of the exporters of the garments. The relevant part of the decision rendered by the Tribunal Chennai in the case of Original Knit Exports Vs. Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Coimbatore [2024 (2) TMI 84-CESTAT, Chennai] is extracted as under:- "7. The contention of the Appellant is that certain deductions shown in the invoices raised to M/s. Bon Prix, Germany, are only discounts in a transaction of sale. M/s. JPS Trading, Dubai arranges for procuring the goods from the appellant to M/s. Bon Prix, Germany. M/s. JPS Trading conducts quality test for export of the garments through their agent viz., Fashion Force, Tirupur situated in In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the name of M/s. Bon Prix, Germany is a payment made to Fashion Force, Tirupur. For these reasons, we find that the demand raised under "BAS‟, "Technical Inspection and Certification Service‟ is without any factual or legal basis. 8. M/s. JPS Trading, Dubai through their agent or their own office in the name of M/s. Fashion Force is carrying out quality check of the garments being exported. M/s. JPS Trading is rendering the service of a buying agent for M/s. Bon Prix, Germany. The service provider and service receiver are thus located in a non-taxable territory. There is neither any written or oral agreement between the Appellant and M/s. JPS Trading, Dubai. When M/s. JPS Trading, Dubai is a buying agent, he cannot be termed ....