TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (4) TMI 1063
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Tangible Goods for use Service", "Transport of Goods by Waterways" and are registered with Service Tax Department. During the course of verification of the documents of the appellant, it was found that the appellant have paid the commission amounting to Rs. 3,63,31,173/- to their foreign agent during the year 2008-09 and 2009-10 towards trading of petroleum products and booked expenditure in their books of account. The commission paid to foreign agent falls under category of 'Business Auxiliary Services' and the same classifiable under sub clause (zzb) of clause 105 of Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 and thus liable to Service Tax. It was also observed that the appellant have received the service of Technical Testing and Analysis" for a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....egal advice that since service was performed outside India, the same is not taxable. Therefore, there is no mala fide intention on the part of the appellant with intend to evade payment of service tax. 2.2 He submits that transactions of these services were recorded in the books of account which was accessible to department during various Audits. Therefore, there is no suppression of fact on the part of the appellant. Accordingly, the entire demand covered under extended period is not sustainable on limitation also. In support of his above submission on both the counts, he placed reliance on the following judgments:- 3i Infotech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax - Mumbai-11-2017 (51) S.T.R. 305 (Tri. Mumbai) Genom Bi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....T.R. 322 (Tri. - Chennai) Ruchi Infotech Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Indore 2015 (37) S.T.R. 131 (Tri. - Del.) Simplex Infrastructures Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of S.T., Kolkata 2016 (42) S.T.R. 634 (Cal.) Uniworth Textiles Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur 2013 (288) E.L.T. 161 (S.C.) TATA Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CST 2018 (18) GSTL 478 (Tri. Del.) - (Affirmed in 2018 (18) GSTL J127 (SC) Uni Ads Ltd. Vs. CST. 2016 (42) STR 547 (Tri. Bang.) Hindalco Industries Ltd. Vs. C.C E. 2018 (10) TMI 392 3. Shri Sanjay Kumar, Learned Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. On careful considerati....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Auxiliary Service'. Therefore, in our view the longer period of limitation cannot be invoked in the fact of the present case. We also found that the appellant were registered with the Service Tax department and discharging service tax on various services. The entire activity of the appellant was open before the department and it is also found that the appellant's records were audited from time to time. On this fact firstly the appellant have not hidden any information related to the transaction of the captioned service. Secondly, department did not point out this issue during their audit or otherwise also. Accordingly, we do not find any act of the appellant which prescribed under Proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, such as suppres....