Cce & St, Chandigarh-I vs V.K. Traders

EXCUS-000-APP-251-259-13-14 dated 24.12.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh)

For Approval & Signature :

Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

CCE & ST, Chandigarh-I Appellant

Vs.

V.K. Traders Respondent

MBG Enterprises

Nony Enterprises

Kesar Travels & Consultant

Lal Narain Forex P. Ltd.

V.K. Traders

Sony Enterprises

S.K. Money Changers

Chief Enterprises

Appearance:

Ms. Suchitra Sharma, D.R. - for the Appellant

None - for the Respondent

Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

F. Order No.52896-52904/2015

Per R.K. Singh:

Stay applications along with appeals have been filed by Revenue against various orders in appeal which set aside respective orders-in-original in terms of which service tax demands along with interest and penalties were confirmed against various respondents on the ground that they had not paid service tax under business auxiliary service.

2. The respondents were acting as sub-agents/sub-representative of M/s Paul Merchants Ltd. and were not paying service tax on the commission earned by them for providing money transfer services, in terms of the agreement with Western Union Financial Services Inc., USA which did not have any office in India. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the respondents appeal on the ground that the issue is covered in favour of the assessees by decision of CESTAT in the case of Paul Merchants Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chandigarh  2012-TIOL-1877-CESTAT-DEL. in terms of which it has been held that the service provided by such agents and sub-agents amounted to export of service in terms of Rule 3(1)(iii) read with Rule 3(2) of the Export of Service Rules, 2005 and hence no service tax was leviable. In its appeal Revenue has argued that service tax is leviable on such sub agents and that service rendered by them does not amount to export of service.

3. During the hearing no body appeared on behalf of the respondents. The ld. DR fairly stated that for the present the case is covered in favour of the respondents by the decision of CESTAT in the case of Paul Merchants (supra) although Revenue has filed appeal there against. We agree with ld. DR that notwithstanding the appeal against CESTAT decision in the case of Paul Merchants (supra), for the present the said judgement is good law on the issue and accordingly as conceded by Revenue. Revenues appeals are not sustainable. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. Stay petitions filed by Revenue were in any case infructuous and they too stand disposed of as such.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

RM

1