Subscribe to BCA Journal Know More

February 2012

(2011) 24 STR 635 (Tri.-Del.) — Peoples Automobiles Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur.

By Puloma Dalal, Jayesh Gogri
Chartered Accountants
Reading Time 2 mins
fiogf49gjkf0d
Appellant provider of business auxiliary service — Appellant claimed benefit under exemption Notification 6/2005 — Claim denied by the adjudicating authority on the grounds that the said services were provided under brand name — Tribunal held this contention as invalid and matter remanded for re-adjudication.

Facts:
The appellant, a direct selling agent for banks and non-financial corporation was held taxable under Business Auxiliary services. However the appellant claimed benefit under the exemption provided to small service providers by exemption Notification 6/2005, which was denied by the adjudicating authority stating that the direct selling agent used the brand name of the bank it served.

Held:
The Tribunal held that the appellant was eligible to claim exemption under the said Notification, as the banks were mere recipient of the services and the appellant did not provide any service by using recipient’s brand name. Also, the Notification did not put restriction with reference to the brand name of the service recipient, however, debarred the benefit to the service provider, if and only if the brand name of another person was being used for rendition of services. On this ground, the confirmation of the demand of the duty was set aside and the matter was remanded for re-adjudication.

Download PDF

You May Also Like

2012 (27) STR 508 (Tri.-Mumbai) Synergic India Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Pune-III

Search and seizure: Section 132 and section 153A of Income-tax Act, 1961: A.Ys. 2004-05 to 2009-10: Warrant of authorisation: Satisfaction must be based on information coming into possession of Department: Absence of new material with authorities: Search and consequent notice unsustainable.