TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 500
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as commission / brokerage. On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the Adjudicating Authority and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellants are in appeal before this Tribunal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 26.03.2018 (impugned order). 2.1 The Commissioner (Appeals), while examining the order passed by the Original Adjudicating Authority, inter alia held that the appellants were not entitled for exemption under Sr. No. 21 (a) of Notification No. 25/2012 dated 26.02.2012 in respect of GTA service on the grounds that the said entry was applicable only to fruits, vegetables, eggs, milk, foods grains or pulses as also under entry No. 21 of Notification No. 25/2012 further, amended by Notification No. 3/2013 which was applicable only to foods stuff including flours, tea, coffee, jaggery, sugar, milk products, salt and edible oil excluding alcoholic beverages. He also examined the term 'agriculture' used in the notification. According to the Commissioner (Appeals) the farm fish without any further processing is out of purview of service tax. Where the appellants were not having their own farms for fish trading, the transportation o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tional Ltd. Versus CST, Delhi - (2017) 5 TMI 184 (c) Sonic Biochem Extractions Ltd. Versus CCE & ST, Indore - (2018) 1 TMI 1092 (d) VST Industries Ltd. Versus CCE, C & ST, Hyderabad -(2017)10 TMI 24 (e) Farida Shoes Pvt. Ltd Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Chennai - (2024) 3 TMI 856 3.1 Further, the learned advocate is also relying by way of alternative that the fish is a kind of foodstuff and the transportation of the same during the period from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2015 would be covered within the ambit of Sr no. 21(d) of Notification No. 25/2015. In this regard, he is relying on the judgment of M./s. S. Narendrakumar and Co. vs. C.C.G.S.T. Mumbai East (2019) 12 TMI 420 (Tri.Mumbai). He is also submitting that there is no dispute as regard the fact that the goods have actually been exported and that the services of transportation were used in exporting those goods. Moreover, in terms of Notification No. 18/2009 dated 07.07.2009, if the consignment note is produced, than tax is required to be paid of services received as GTA when the goods are exported. However, the said notification was superseded by Notification No. 31/2012 dated 20.06.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e fish procured have been caught from ocean and they cannot be termed as agricultural produce. The appellant purchased fish from the fisherman and carried out process like cutting of heads and tails, peeling, deveining, cleaning and freezing etc. In view of these observations, the learned Commissioner has held that the fish which are exported by the appellant are not agricultural produce and the provisions of Notifications no. 25/2012 are not applicable on the export of fishes. As a result, the appellant were bound to follow the procedure prescribed in Notification No. 18/2019-ST dated 07.07.2009 as amended vide Notification NO. 31/2012-ST dated 28th June, 2012. 4.3 We agree with the reasoning given by the learned Commissioner as mentioned above for holding that the fish exported by the appellant were not agricultural produce and provisions of Notification No. 25/2012 are not applicable to the export of those fish. The conclusion is based on proper interpretation of the terms 'agriculture' and 'agricultural produce' and must be upheld. 4.4 The learned counsel for the appellant has countered the reasoning given by the Commissioner as mentioned above by submitting that the appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Reverse Charge Mechanism. In the present case, the appellant has paid export sales commission to overseas commission agent in 2010-11 and 2014-15 on overseas sales. This issue is covered by Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009. This Notification provides for exemption from payment of service tax on taxable service under Section 65(105) (zzb) which is received by an exporter of goods and used for export of goods subject to 1% of the FOB value and subject to conditions as laid down in the Notification mentioned above. In the context of refund of Service Tax paid on foreign agency commission, this Notification says that exemption shall be limited to 1% of the free on board value of export goods for which the said service has been used. Thus, the amount of service tax paid, which can be refunded to the exporter, is restricted to 1% of the FOB value of export goods in relation to which the taxable service of the foreign agent was used. Thus, from the provision of the Notification No. 18/2009- ST, it is clear that, the person who paid export sales commission to overseas commission agent on overseas sales is required to pay service tax first and then can claim refund of the servi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s" were not included in the said definition. The demands pertains to years 2012-13 and 2013-14, therefore, the appellant was required to pay Service Tax and was not qualified for exclusion under Rule 9 read with Rule 2 (f) of the Rules. 4.9 Regarding GTA service, the learned Commissioner has referred to the Notification No. 18/2009-ST dated 07.07.2009, as amended vide Notification No. 31/2012. The learned Commissioner has observed that vide above mentioned notification, the government has allowed exemption to the exporter on production of the 'consignment note' issued in name of exporter subject to the conditions mentioned therein which are to be followed by the person who intend to avail exemption from payment of service tax for the goods exported. Thus, it is clear that the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax on GTA paid during the year 2010-11 to 2014-15. The remedy of exemption or refund has been provided on certain conditions, which the appellant failed to observe but they have claimed that Service received by them were for export and hence they are not liable to pay Service Tax on GTA service which is incorrect because they have failed to follow the prescribed procedure....