Chartered Accountant
Bookmark and Share
click here to subscribe our newsletter
 
 
Corporate News *   FM acknowledges problems faced by businesses in migration to GST *   Tariff Notification in respect of Fixation of Tariff Value of Edible Oils, Brass Scrap, Poppy Seeds, Areca Nut, Gold and Sliver *   Rate of exchange of conversion of the foreign currency with effect from 21th July, 2017 *   Clarification regarding import of goods for personal use through courier  *   GSTIN requirement for the purpose of import & export  *   Operational problems being faced by EOU in GST regime consequent to amendment in Notification no. 52/2003-Customs dated 31-3-2003 *   Detailed guidelines for retesting of sample *   Seeks to Impose provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of 'O-Acid" originating in exported from China PR  *   SEZ units exempted from IGST  on import *   aircrafts exempted from customs and  IGST *   Drawback of Integrated Tax and Compensation Cess paid on imported goods upon re-export under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 *   Disposal of seized/confiscated cigarettes of foreign origin vis-à-vis provisions of the Cigarettes and other Tobacco products (Packaging and Labelling) Rules, 2008 *   Amendment in export policy of sandalwood oil *   Addition of M/s International Gemological Institute (India) Pvt LTd. in paragraph 4.42 of FTP 2015-2020 *    Amendment in export policy for export of chemicals listed under SCOMET *   Permission to supply of essential commodities to the Republic of Maldives during 2017-18 *   Amendment in export policy of Muli Bamboo and export policy for bamboo products *   Extending Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) benefit for `Onions Fresh or Chilled` *   Revision of Permanent IEC code to alpha numeric format *   Applicability of FTP provisions in the context of the implementation of the GST regime *   No excuse for firms not to be ready for GST: Arun Jaitley  *   Exempt roads, railways from GST: Assocham to govt *   Companies may lose their registration if they fail to pass GST benefits to you  *   Industry hails 2 month relaxation in filing of returns under GST *  Indian Mid-Market Companies See GST as a Boon *  Drug inventory with stockists falls ahead of GST *  Government examines drawback benefit schemes in GST regime  *  Excise Department to have own Vigilance Cell *  Excise cut on alcohol may protect off-licences from Brexit impact *  Use of Natural Resource-Cenvat credit to be carried forward under GST: Finance Ministry
Subject News *  Deadline for GST composition scheme extended till Aug 16 *   Services provided by smaller RWAs are exempt from GST *   Seeks to extend levy of anti- dumping duty on imports of ' Grinding Media Balls' (excluding Forged Grinding media Balls), originating in, or exported from, Thailand and people's Republic of China imposed vide Notification 36/2012- Customs (ADD) ,dated 16th July, for one year i.e. up to and inclusive of the 15th July, 2018. *   IGST exempted on cut & polished diamonds *   Seeks to increase import duty on sugar [Raw sugar, Refined or White sugar, Raw sugar if imported by bulk consumer under tariff head 1701, from the present 40% to 50% with immediate effect and without an end date *   Amended chapter heading 8504 40 in notification no. 25/2005 customs *   Duty Drawback for supplies made by DTA units to Special Economic Zones in the GST scenario *   Implementation of Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017 *   Export procedure and sealing of containerized cargo *   Regarding revised rates of Rebate of State Levies on Export of Garments and textilemade-up articles w.e.f. 01.07.2017 *   notification No.28/2002-Central Excise, dated the 13th May, 2002 amended {See notification no 20/2017-CE, dt. 03-07-2017 in What’s new}   *   Notification No. 16/2010-Central Excise, dt 27th February, 2010 rescinded {See notification no 19/2017-CE, dt. 01-07-2017 in What’s new}   *   Exemption from Additional duty of excise on goods specified in the Seventh Schedule of Finance Act, 2005 {see notification no. 18/2017-CE, dt. 01-07-2017 in What’s new} *   Amendment in various Central Excise Exemption notifications relating to Export Promotion Schemes {See notification no 17/2017-CE, dt. 30-06-2017 in What’s new}   *   Amendment to notification No. 23/2003-CE, dt 31st March, 2003 {See notification no 16/2017-CE, dt. 30-06-2017 in Whar’s new} *   Exemption from special additional excise duty on Motor spirit & HSD Oil omitted {See notification no. 15/2017-CE, dt. 30-06-2017 in What’s new} *   Amendment in notifications 52/2002 –CE, 8/2003-CE, 38/2004-CE, 3/2006-CE, 29/2008-CE, 62/2008-CE and 21/2009-CE *   Exemption from excise duty on goods specified for defence and other specified purposes {see notification no. 13/2017-CE, dt. 30-06-2017 in What’s new} *   Exemption from excise duty on goods manufactured on or before 30th june 2017 but not cleared from the factory of production before 1st july 2017 {see 12/2017-CE, dt. 30-06-2017 in What’s new} *   Notification 12/2012-central excise superseded {see notification no 11/2017-CE, dt. 30-06-2017 in What’s new} *   Few Central Excise notifications rescinded. {See notification 09/2017-CE, dt. 30-06-2017 in What’s new} *   Exemption to specified goods supplied to the United Nations or an international organisation for their official use from excise duty {see notification no 10/2017-CE, dt. 30-06-2017 in What’s new} *   Credit transfer document under rule 15(2) of CCR, 2017 prescribed {See notification no21/2017-CENT dt. 30-06-2017 in What’s new} *   the new CENVAT Credit Rules, 2017 notified {See notification no. 20/2017-CENT dt. 30-06-2017 in What’s new} *   The new Central Excise Rules, 2017 notified {See notification no 19/2017-CENT dt. 30-06-2017 in What’s new} *   Classification of Printed Workbooks, Exercise books etc. under erstwhile CETA 1985 {See circular no1057/06/2017-CX dt. 07-07-2017 in What’s new} *   Handling of legacy work of LTUs in the GST regime {See circular no 1056/05/2017-CX dt. 29-06-2017 in What’s new} *   Postings/transfers in the grades of Principal Commissioner/Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise - Please refer to D.O. letter dt. 31-05-2017 from Member (Admn.)Corrigendum to Office Order 79/2017 {See Office Order No. 79/2017 in what’s new} *   Grant of Ante-dated Non-Functional Selection Grade to Ms. P.N. Hemalata, Addl. Commissioner (Retd.) on ad-hoc basis w.e.f. 30.07.2009 {See office order no. 80/2017 in what’s new} *   Posting of 3 IRS (C&CE) in GST Policy Wing {See office order no. 81/2017 in what’s new}  

Comments

Print   |    |  Comment

PJ/Case Law/2016-2017/3447

whether benefit of notification No. 13/2003-S.T. be denied to commission agents if he is involved in other activities also?

Case-CHAHABRIA MARKETING LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX, MUMBAI
Citation-2016 (43) S.T.R. 193 (Tri. - Mumbai)
Issue-whether benefit of notification No. 13/2003-S.T. be denied to commission agents if he is involved in other activities also?
Brief Facts-The relevant facts of the case for consideration are appellant herein, during the period July, 2003 to 8 July, 2004 was alleged to have been engaged in marketing and selling of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) for BDA Ltd. It is the case of the Revenue that in lieu of services rendered by appellant they were eligible for commission which was paid on per case of IMFL sold. The services which were rendered by the appellant to BDA Ltd., were in furtherance of contract/agreement entered in 1992 in which appellant had been appointed by BDA Ltd., for marketing services and for consultancy to effectively promote the sale of IMFL/Beer belonging to BDA Ltd. On examination and outcome of an inquiry conducted by the Officers of Preventive Section, Mumbai-I Commissionerate, it was noticed that appellant had received an income as commission on which Service Tax liability arised under the category of Business Auxiliary Service as per the Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994. Show cause notice was issued for the demand of Service Tax liability, interest thereof and for imposition of penalties. The show-cause notice was resisted on merits as well as on limitation. The adjudicating authority after following due process of law confirmed the demands raised, appropriated the amount paid by the appellant during the pendency of the proceedings and also imposed penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
Appellant’s Contention-Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant took through various clauses of Manufacturing Agreement entered by them during the period in question. He would draw our attention to the specific clauses and submit that the appellant had in fact, did not promote any goods produced or provided or belonging to the clients. It was the submission that substance of the agreement was not appreciated by the adjudicating authority and though the amounts received were actually accounted as commission but were for the higher sales effected by appellant, they were entitled to consideration on per case sale of IMFL/Beer. It was the submission that the impugned order has overlooked the real intent of agreement. It was the submission that appellant had to procure orders only from those stockist who hold valid permit/intent as the sale of IMFL/Beer were restricted and the impugned order had overlooked various clauses in agreement, and has considered the same as merely a marketing initiative; the adjudicating authority has read the agreement in isolation and had not considered it in a holistic manner. It was the further submission that the Notification No. 13/03-S.T. granted exemption in respect of services rendered by the commission agents. Assuming that the appellant had rendered the services of commission agents, the appellant satisfy the pre-requisite for being a commission agent in terms of Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. while the denial of said exemption Notification by the adjudicating authority was only on the ground that the appellant was doing more than the commission agent’s work. It was the submission that doing additional work as commission agent cannot deny the exemption available to the appellant. It was the submission that the adjudicating authority had not considered the binding Tribunal’s judgment. It was also the submission that the findings of the adjudicating authority that the appellant had by appointing various bottlers had manufactured IMFL/Beer and if it was so there cannot be any Service Tax liability as the activity per se does not amount services. Alternate submission was that having discharged the said Service Tax liability, provisions of Section 73(3) will be attracted and no notice was required to be issued and the learned Counsel prays to set aside the impugned order.
Respondent’s Contention-Learned DR on the other hand, drew attention to the very same agreement submitted that the agreement specifically required the appellant herein to undertake the marketing activity. It was his submission that the commission agent did not undertake marketing activity and the functioning of the commission agent needed to be considered as is given in the Notification which was that if he caused sale or purchase of the goods on behalf of another person, but in the case in hand the entire marketing set up was being done by the appellant herein. He would submit that the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. v. CCE Vadodara - 2011 (22)S.T.R.41 (Tri.-Ahmd.) will be applicable in its full force. He would also submit that the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of CCE, Raipur v. Raj Wines - 2012 (28)S.T.R.46 (Tri.-Del.) may also be considered.
 
Reasoning Of Judgement-The short issue involved in this appeal was whether the services rendered by the appellant to BDA Ltd., during the period July, 2003 to 8-7-2004 were eligible for exemption from Service Tax in terms of Notification No. 13/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003. The said Notification exempts from payment of Service Tax the ‘Business auxiliary services’ provided by a ’commission agent’. The expression ‘commission agent’ had been defined in an Explanation under the said Notification to mean ‘a person who causes sale or purchase of goods on behalf of another person for a consideration which was based on the quantum of such sale or purchase’. In the impugned order the Commissioner had denied the benefit of exemption on the ground that the activities performed by the appellant were much wider than that of a ‘commission agent’ as defined in the Notification. He had observed that though the commission was fixed with reference to the quantity of goods actually sold, the activities of the appellant were not confined to sale only but covered various other services starting from arranging the production of goods by engaging bottlers/distillers upto collection of sale proceeds. The Commissioner proceeds on the premise that the benefit of the exemption was available to a ‘commission agent’ who provides services ‘only’ in respect of sale or purchase of goods. In our view, this was an incorrect reading of the Notification as the exemption under this Notification applies to all Business auxiliary services provided by a ‘commission agent’, and not merely to the services of selling or purchasing goods on behalf of the client. No doubt a ‘commission agent’ as defined under this Notification was a person who provides service in relation to purchase or sale of goods, this was only for defining the eligibility criterion and was relevant only for determining whether or not an assesse claiming the benefit of this Notification was a ‘commission agent’ or not. Once it was held that the assessee was a ‘commission agent’ by virtue of being engaged in the activity of causing sale or purchase for a consideration which was linked to the quantum of sale or purchase, the benefit of this Notification will cover all business auxiliary services rendered by such a ‘commission agent’. The activities which were covered under the head ‘Business auxiliary services were the following :-
“(19)Business auxiliary servicemeans any service in relation to -
(i)         Promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client; or
(ii)        Promotion or marketing of service provided by the client; or
(iii)       Any customer care service provided on behalf of the client; or
(iv)       Procurement of goods or services, which are inputs for the client; or
(v)        Production of goods on behalf of the client; or
(vi)       Provision of service on behalf of the client; or
(vii)      A service incidental or auxiliary to any activity specified in sub-clauses (i) to (vi), such as billing, issue or collection or recovery of cheques, payments, maintenance of accounts and remittance, inventory management, evaluation or development of prospective customer or vendor, public relation services, management or supervision, and includes services as a commission agent but does not include any information technology service and any activity that amounts to “manufacture” within the meaning of clause (f) of section 2 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (1 of 1944)”.
It was clear from the above extracted definition that business auxiliary services include, in addition to services in relation to sale of goods, several other services too such as those in relation to promotion or marketing of goods belonging to the clients, services for procurement of goods or service for the client or any customer care service provided on behalf of the client or production of goods on behalf of the client or provision of service on behalf of the client or any incidental or auxiliary service such as billing, issue or collection or recovery or cheques, payments, maintenance of accounts and remittance, including inventory management, evaluation or development of prospective customer or vendor, public relation services, management or supervision, etc.
The other services, apart from the services of actually selling goods, which the appellant was allegedly to have rendered to BDA Ltd., are all services covered by the definition of ‘Business Auxiliary Service’. The activity of engaging bottlers for production of liquor (IMFL/Beer) was an activity of procurement of goods on behalf of the client covered specifically by clause (iv). The activity of collection/recovery of payment was also specifically covered under the inclusive part of the definition of “Business auxiliary service”. These services, if rendered by a ‘commission agent’ were exempt under the Notification.
The Commissioner in Para 36 of the impugned order did not dispute that the appellant was engaged in the activity of selling IMFL/Beer for BDA Ltd. The Commissioner also did not dispute that the consideration which the appellant was to receive for such services was linked to the quantum of goods actually sold. Thus, the twin requirement of the definition of ‘commission agent’ viz., that the agent should cause sale or purchase of goods on behalf of another person and that the consideration should be linked to the quantum of such sale or purchase, stand fully satisfied. In view of the specific definition of the expression ‘commission agent’ in the Notification, we were not inclined to look at the common parlance meaning of the said expression or its meaning in the VAT Laws as argued by the ld. Representative of the Department.
Bench held thatthe Bangalore Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Premier Enterprises v. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 2009 (16)S.T.R.158 (Tri.-Bang.) was dealing with a somewhat similar situation where an assessee claiming to be a ‘commission agent’ within the meaning of the same Notification, was not only causing sale of liquor but also performing many other activities of promoting or marketing of goods. The Revenue had denied the benefit of Notification No. 13/2003-S.T., dated 26-3-2003 by holding that the assessee therein was performing activities which were wider in scope than actually causing sale of liquor. The Tribunal did not accept this contention of the Revenue in view of the fact that consideration payable to the assessee therein was based on the quantum of sale. In this case too, the consideration received by the appellant was based on the actual quantity of liquor sold through them.
The ld. Representative for the Revenue also cited a Tribunal decision in the case of Aditya Birla (supra) wherein the benefit of the same exemption was denied and the decision of the Bangalore Bench of the CESTAT in the case of Premier Enterprise cited supra was distinguished. Bench did not found this decision to be of any relevance to the present case as this decision was rendered in the context of some peculiar facts prevailing in that case viz that the consideration received by the assesse therein was not really linked to the quantum of sales effected as was the requirement of the Notification, but was really a trading margin being retained by the said assessee by claiming it as a commission. The Tribunal, in Paras 15 to 17 of the said order, took note of this peculiar feature of the arrangement of the assessee in that case and the manufacturer whose goods were being sold. The earnings of the appellant therein varied from 5% to 94% of the sale price which itself indicated that the assessee was not really working on commission basis, which was usually a fixed rate but was earning a trading margin and claiming the same to be a commission. Further, the argument that the Notification No. 13/2003-S.T., dated 20-6-2003 exempts all services covered under the ‘Business auxiliary services’ as has been urged before us in the present case, was never canvassed or dealt with in that case.
Another decision cited by the ld. Representative of the Revenue is the case of Raj Wines (supra) wherein the benefit of exemption was denied on the ground that the consideration received by the assessee in that case was not merely based on the volume of sales. The Tribunal, in Para 12, rightly observed that such an arrangement was not covered under the Notification. No support can be drawn from this decision as in the present case, the commissioner has himself found in Para 36 that the consideration received by the appellant was linked to the quantity of goods sold.
At this stage it was noted that the ld. Counsel for the appellant pointed out that though the agreement dated 10-12-1992 between the appellant and the BDA Ltd., contemplate that the appellant will help BDA Ltd., in procurement of liquor by appointing distillers/bottlers on behalf of BDA Ltd., no such activity of arranging appointment of distillers/bottlers between the appellant and the BDA Ltd., was actually carried out during the period July, 2003 to 8-7-2004 for which demand has been raised in the present case. It was submitted that that all the 16 bottlers appointed by the appellant on behalf of BDA Ltd., a fact cited in the order of the Commissioner, were appointed long ago and not during the 1 year period to which the demand relates. Clause 6 of the agreement dated 10-12-1992 which states that the consideration payable to the appellant will be determined from time-to-time depending inter alia upon the extent of services rendered from time-to-time itself shows that the activities enumerated therein are merely indicative of the kinds of services which the appellant ‘could’ render to BDA Ltd., at a future point of time and does not conclusively describe the services actually rendered during a particular period. Bench attention in this regard was drawn to a letter dated 23-3-2000 addressed to the Appellant by BDA Ltd., wherein the appellant’s service charges were fixed with reference to the quantum of products marketed by it. The debit advice annexed to the appeal shows that the consideration received was always linked to the quantum of sales affected. This evidence seems to lend support to the aforesaid contentions of the appellant and in the absence of any specific finding in the impugned order or any allegation to the contrary in the Show Cause Notice, bench held that during the period relevant to this appeal, there is no evidence to show that the appellant had indeed carried out any activity other than the activity of selling goods belonging to BDA Ltd. On this factual ground also, the appellant is entitled to succeed. However, as observed by us earlier, even if the appellant has rendered services relating to procurement of goods on behalf of BDA Ltd., or helped in collection or recovery of payments, it would remain entitled to the benefit of exemption.
 In view of foregoing and in facts and circumstances of this case, bench held that impugned order is liable to be set aside and therefore impugned order was set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
Decision-Appeal allowed
Comment- The kernel of the case is that Commission agent was involved in not only sale and purchase of goods but also arranging production of goods upto collection of sale proceeds. It was held that Benefit of Notification No. 13/2003-S.T. could not be denied on the ground that it was available only in respect of sale or purchase of goods. It extends to all Business Auxiliary Services provided by commission agent and not merely to services of selling or purchasing goods on behalf of client.
Prepared By-Arundhati bajpai

Department News


Query

 
PRADEEP JAIN, F.C.A.

Head Office : -

Address :
"SUGYAN", H - 29, SHASTRI NAGAR, JODHPUR (RAJ.) - 342003

Phone No. :
0291 - 2439496, 0291 - 3258496

Mobile No. :
09314722236

Fax No. :0291 - 2439496


Branch Office : -

Address:
1008, 10th FLOOR, SUKH SAGAR COMPLEX,
NEAR FORTUNE LANDMARK HOTEL, USMANPURA,
ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD-380013

Phone No. :
079-32999496, 27560043

Mobile No. :
093777659496, 09377649496

E-mail :pradeep@capradeepjain.com