KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are five appeals filed by the different appellants as per details given below:

(2.) HEARD ld. Advocate Ms. Rashi Surekha at length. She submits that appellants have already paid the service tax along with interest on commissions received by them from I.B.P./IOC. Appellant's charges include the payment received from I.B.P./IOC on account of commission, Tea/Coffee/consumable, salary of employees. Similarly Gensets expenses, Bank Charges, Electricity Charges, are reimbursable by the I.B.P./IOC and are borne out by the appellant on behalf of the I.B.P./IOC. She further submits that I.B.P./IOC also pays for handling losses on of the loss of the product to the appellant. The department is demanding service tax on all these charges which is against the provision of Section 67 of Finance Act. She further points out Commission Agent under BAS is exempted from Service Tax under Notification 13/2003 -S.T., dated 20 -6 -2003. She submits show cause notices are also hit by time limitation and there is no case of imposition of penalty on the appellants. She relied upon judgment of Delhi High Court in case of Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd., [2003 (29) S.T.R. 9 (Del.)].

(3.) AFTER hearing both sides we find that service tax has been demanded from the appellants under category of Business Auxiliary Service (BAS) under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act.