Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
The Rasipuram Agricultural Producers ... vs Salem on 1 February, 2024
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. I
Service Tax Appeal No. 42635 of 2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Appeal Nos. 179&180/2014-ST dated 02.09.2014 passed by Commissioner of
Central Excise (Appeals), No. 1, Foulks Compound, Anai Road, Salem - 636 001)
M/s. The Rasipuram Agricultural Producers
Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. (S.No. 318) ...Appellant
No. 18, Chinna Mettu Street,
Rasipuram - 637 408.
Versus
Commissioner of GST and Central Excise ...Respondent
Salem Commissionerate, No. 1, Foulks Compound, Anai Medu, Salem - 636 001.
APPEARANCE:
For the Appellant : Shri Aurobindo cumar, Advocate For the Respondent : Shri Harendra Singh Pal, Assistant Commissioner / A.R. CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) DATE OF HEARING : 18.01.2024 DATE OF DECISION : 01.02.2024 FINAL ORDER No. 40109 / 2024 Order : [Per Mr. VASA SESHAGIRI RAO] M/s. The Rasipuram Agricultural Producers Co-op. Marketing Society Ltd. (herein after called as „Appellant‟) has filed this appeal No. ST/42635/2014 assailing the Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 179&180/2014-ST dated
02.09.2014 of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem who upheld the Order-in-Original No. 26/2014 JC(ST) dated 30.04.2014 passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Salem.
2ST/42635/2014 2.1 Brief of the facts leading to this appeal before this forum are as follows:-
2.2 M/s. The Rasipuram Agricultural Producers Co-Op.
Marketing Society Ltd. was established in 1929 to provide service for the benefit of the agriculturists who are members of the society. As an agent of the members, to ensure that the agriculturists get a fair price for their products, appellants are providing marketing assistance such as in the nature of secret tender service and marketing the agricultural produce on behalf of the members. For this, the appellants include such of those traders who are interested to buy the agricultural produce and who have got the sales tax Registration Number. For the services rendered by the society for marketing the agricultural produce brought by the members, a commission as service charge is being received as a percentage of the sale proceeds. Similarly a commission as service charge is obtained from the traders for the services offered by the society. Among other activities, the appellants also arrange jewel loans to the members and also undertaking the work of lifting and delivering the goods to the ration shops under the Public Distribution System.
2.3 It is alleged by the Department that the services rendered by the appellants are in the nature of the "Auctioneer's Service", "Business Support Service" and "Good Transport Agency Service". As such, a Statement of Demand No. 8/2013 dated 05.04.2013 was issued demanding Service Tax of Rs.5,31,325/- for the period from 01.10.2011 to 30.06.2012 under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994, besides demand of interest and 3 ST/42635/2014 imposing penalties under Section 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
2.4 The appellant submitted a detailed reply to the Adjudicating Authority and additional submissions at the time of personal hearing. On adjudication, the Original Adjudicating Authority confirmed the proposals made in the Statement of Demand notice.
2.5 Aggrieved with the above order of the Original Adjudicating Authority, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Salem, who vide his Order-in-Appeal Nos. 179&180/2014 dated 02.09.2014 had rejected the appeal preferred by the appellant and confirmed the Order-in-Original in Toto. Being aggrieved against this Order-in-Appeal, the appellant has come before this forum.
3. From the records, it is evident that the appellant undertaken the following activities.
i. Arranging for and undertaking of purchase, storing, processing and marketing of the agricultural and other produce or products of its Members to the best advantage and for undertaking distribution of commodities.
ii. Providing marketing facilities such as tender yards, drying facilities and warehousing and produce pledge loans and thereby facilitating the farmer members to sell their produce at a remunerative price in a transparent manner.
4ST/42635/2014 iii. Dealing in commodities such as cotton, maize, oil seeds and turmeric.
iv. Determining the price of the goods in the secret tender conducted where the members bring their produce facilitating tendering of the same by the appellants on the scheduled dates and on receipt of the produces, they are given a receipt with identification lot number for the goods brought into the society for tender; the goods are stacked/stored in the tender yard.
v. Sale of goods through secret tender method.
Before commencement of secret tender of the said produces, tender farms are given to the traders after making necessary entry in the tender form register for quoting the price of the goods.
vi. On examining the goods stacked in the open yard as well as in the godown, traders mention their name, address and quote the price for the goods lot wise in the tender form and then drop the completed tender form in the tender box.
vii. Opening of the tender box in the evening by the Marketing Manager of the Society in the presence of Traders and Secretary and after opening the tender box, the traders who quoted the highest price for a particular lot is declared as the highest bidder and the same 5 ST/42635/2014 is displayed in the notice board, lot wise for the convenience of the Farmers.
viii. After noticing the price of the goods declared in the notice board, if the farmer is satisfied, he may sell the goods, otherwise he may store the goods for the next sale.
ix. After getting concurrence from the farmers for the price offered by the traders to the said lot, the goods are sold to the highest bidder for the said produce.
x. On completion of sale, the sale proceeds are disbursed to the members immediately by the appellants, after deducting service charges @2% in respect of cotton, maize and oil seeds and 2.5% for turmeric, as „marketing service charges from Riots‟ for the value of the produce sold in secret tender and from the merchants 1% service charges is collected toward their service.
xi. For conducting the secret tender, the traders are informed in advance through various media. A tender register is being maintained by the appellants, wherein Lot Number, Name of the Farmer, Quantity Auctioned price, Bidder's name are clearly mentioned. On completion of auction, a weighment slip is given to the farmer wherein the name and address of the farmer, Lot Number, Commodity, Agreed Auctioned price, Service 6 ST/42635/2014 Charges, Advance, Handling charges and final disbursement amount are entered.
xii. The appellants are providing facilities like advertisement through different media, short term storage facilities to keep the agricultural produces like cotton in the godown and providing clean and safe auction yard. For the auction conducted by the appellants, a charge has been collected from the sellers in the name of service charges, @ 1% on the value of the goods sold through auction.
xiii. The appellants are bound to disburse the sale proceeds to the members after deducting the applicable charges @ 2% (Trade charges and handling & incidental expenses) on the value of goods sold, immediately based on the financial position of the society.
xiv. The buyers/traders are allowed to store the goods purchased by them through auction free of charge for the maximum of 10 days, thereafter interest will be charged from them and storage charge @ Rs.1/- per quintal will be charged from the traders whereas the farmers, who brought the goods to the appellants, are allowed to store the goods free of cost.
7ST/42635/2014
4. The appellants are also extending jewel loans to the members. On sanctioning of the jewel loan, an appraising charge @3/- per thousand on the amount of loan sanctioned subject to the maximum of Rs.10 and Rs.100/- per loan is collected from the members. The appellants are not arranging any transport facilities to bring the goods on behalf of farmer/sellers to the Society. However, the appellants had paid freight in respect of movement of ration goods (Public Distribution system) for fair price shops and also for purchase of goods to the society.
5.1 The Original Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the Service Tax of Rs.5,31,325/- under the categories of Auctioneer‟s Service, Business Support Service and Goods and Transport Agency Service on the basis that:-
i. As per explanation to Section 65(105)(zzzr), if government property is auctioned by government or any other person, then Service Tax is exempted under the category of "Auctioneers Service".
ii. If auction is conducted related to goods or property belonging to private parties by Government or private person, then same is taxable under the category "Auctioneers Service".
iii. That exemption is not extended to auction related to agricultural products and auction conducted by charitable institutions operating under non-profit motive and by Government.8
ST/42635/2014 5.2 The appellant has submitted that their Auctioneer‟s Service is exempted in terms of Notification No. 13/2003-
ST dated 20.06.2003 as even if they are treated as a commission agent under BAS, Sale or Purchase of Agricultural Produce is exempted from Service Tax leviable under Section 66 of the Finance Act, 1994.
5.3 The goods brought by the members of the society are marketed / sold to the registered traders. Actually, the Society premises are used as a common platform for sale by agriculturist and inspection by the buyers. The goods are sold by adopting different practices such as tender, auction, etc. The so-called auction is also a modus operandi for effecting the sale. A sale is a sale whether it is across the counter as retail sale or through wholesale market or through tender or by auction. By all means, it is only a sale. The terminology Auction is encompassed in the generic term "Sale". The Sale of product by Auction is also recognized under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. For the service rendered by the Society, a commission is received. The statutory definition under the category "Business Auxiliary Service" pertaining to marketing or sale of goods produced or provided by or belonging to client has neither been omitted nor modified consequent to the introduction of „Auctioneer's Service‟ w.e.f. 01.05.2006. Further, the Notification No. 13/2003-ST dated 20.06.2003 (as amended) is still in vogue and has not been rescinded.
5.4 Simply because a new service viz. „Auctioneer's Service‟ was introduced from 01.05.2006 the marketing / sale of goods which is already covered under the service of "Business Auxiliary Service" cannot be shifted to the new entry by any mischief of interpretation unless it is carved 9 ST/42635/2014 out of the existing entry and shifted to the new entry statutorily. This has not been done.
6.1 The demand on GTA Service was confirmed due to the fact that the appellants have undertaken the work of lifting and delivering the goods to ration shops under Public Distribution System and that the appellant have not produced any material evidence to claim exemption under Notification No. 04/2010-ST dated 27.02.2010.
6.2 The appellants have undertaken the work of lifting the Ration goods (like wheat, rice, pulses, sugar etc.) from the Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation godowns to various Ration shops located within the approved jurisdiction. For the above purpose, they have engaged individual truck owners or truck operators such as lorry owners/ transporters and not goods transport agency.
6.3 The Ld. counsel has submitted that only goods transport agency is liable to pay tax as per the statutory definition of "Goods Transport Agency Service" and Ministry's clarification if any, the liability to pay tax can be fastened on consignor or consignee, as the case may be, as per Section 68(2) Finance Act, 1994 read with Service Tax Rule 2(1)(d)(v). The transport charges have been paid by the appellants towards the lifting of ration goods which was transported by Truck operators. GTA Service is not a levy on lorry owners or truck operators. The truck owners or truck operators are not liable to pay the tax and are not covered under the levy is confirmed by the Tribunal‟s decision in the case of Lakshmi Narayana Mining Co. Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, Bangalore [2009 (16) STR 691 (Tri.-Bang.)] which has been affirmed by the 10 ST/42635/2014 Karnataka High Court reported in [2012 (26) S.T.R. 517 (Kаr.)], 6.4 It was submitted that since „truck Operators/truck owners‟ are not covered under the scheme of subject levy, the present demand is not sustainable. The truck operators do not issue any consignment note as per trade practice. "Goods Transport Agency" has been defined in the Act as „any person who provides the service in relation to transport of goods by road and issues consignment note, by whatever name called‟.
6.5 The Ld. counsel has further argued that even if impugned service is taxable under the category "Goods Transport Agency Service", the demand is not sustainable as the same has been demanded without providing the benefit of abatement to the extent of 75% under Notification No. 1/2006-ST dated 01.03.2006. The Ld. Authority has alleged that the appellants have not produced evidence to claim exemption. It is submitted that the only requirement for claiming exemption under Notification No. 1/2006 is that the assessee should produce declaration from the transporter that they have not availed credit on the Service Tax paid.
6.6 He has put forth that the transport of food grains/ pulses by road has been exempted under Notification No. 33/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 and that they are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 34/2004-ST, since they had incurred some short distance loads for which they have paid freight of Rs.750/-. Thus, the demand has to be re-worked, if Service Tax is liable to be paid under Goods Transport Service. Without prejudice to their main contention that demand itself is not payable as the 11 ST/42635/2014 transport has been made by individual truck owner. The Ld. Advocate has prayed for allowing the appeal.
7. The Ld. Authorised Representative Shri Harendra Singh Pal has reiterated the findings of the Lower Adjudicating Authorities.
8. We have heard both sides and we have carefully gone through the records as available in this appeal.
9. The issues which arises for consideration in this case are:-
i. Whether the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax under the category of "Auctioneer‟s Service"? ii. Whether the appellant is liable to pay Service Tax under BSS and GTA services? and iii. Whether the penalties imposed on the appellant are sustainable or not?
10. On the issue of taxability of the services rendered by the Appellant and other agricultural producers co- operative marketing societies with regard to "Auctioneer‟s Service", it is to be observed that numerous judicial decisions have already gone into the differences between the process of Auction and Tender. Likewise, the taxability of Business Support Service for giving jewel loans and also GTA Service for transport of PDS goods for Tamil Nadu Government various decisions by the Tribunal have held in favor of the appellant. All these issues are no more res- integra and the facts in this appeal are identical to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Namakkal Agricultural Producers Co-op. Marketing Society Vs. 12 ST/42635/2014 Commissioner of Central Excise vide F.O.No. 40302- 40303/2023 dated 25.04.2023, wherein this Bench has observed as under: -
"5.1 The main issue which requires consideration in the instant case is as to whether the appellants are rendering "Auctioneer's Service" in respect of marketing and other services rendered for selling agricultural produce of its farmer members? The other issues are demand of service tax under BSS and GTA services. Regarding the taxability of appellant's services under "Auctioneer's Service", a numerous judicial decisions have already gone into the differences between Auction and Tender. The Tribunal in M/s. The Salem Starch & Sago Manufacturers Service Industrial Co-operative Society Ltd. Vs. CCE& ST, Salem reported in 2018 (3) TMI 192-Cestat Chennai, has analysed the differences between "auction" and "tender"
as under:- . . .
"5.7 A number of judicial decisions have also gone into the difference between "auction" and "tender":-
i. Auction Vs. Inviting Tenders:- Former is a way of selling property by bids usually to the highest bidder by public competition. Latter is merely an attempt to ascertain whether an offer can be obtained within adoptable margin. It is an offerto receive offers, an offer to chaffer: 1974 SC 651-6.
ii. Auction Vs. Tender: In an auction, a number of persons attempt to outbid each other; in any system of tenders, though the spirit of outbidding by closed offer is inherent, yet one cannot complete for the 2nd and 3rd time. Moreover, when tender is given, the tenderer gives the bid in documents without knowing the offer or bid of the other tenderer: Kalyan Singh Vs. DAH 1981 NOC 24 Raj."
iii. In Gulab Singh Vs. Chandrapal Singh and Ors. (supra), relied upon by the Ld. Advocate the Court had occasion to analyse whether the mode of sale by calling offers by advertisement can be said to be a form of a public auction, as follows:-
"17. However, the principal question to be considered in the instant case is as to whether the mode of sale by calling offers by advertisement can be said to be a form of a public auction. In support of the contention that the mode of calling for offers by advertisement is not a sale by public auction the provisions of section 64 of the Sale of Goods Act are brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the applicant to show 13 ST/42635/2014 what an auction sale means or how it is understood. The main feature distinguishing the auction sale from other sales which is pointed out therein is that the auction sale is on the spot and is by public competition. Everybody present at the time of the said sale is entitled to raise his own bid on the spot and that is how the highest bidder is determined. It is pointed out that in a case of sale by tenders or by calling for offers, there is no opportunity to the intending buyer to raise his own bid. It is, therefore, urged that sale by inviting offers cannot be a sale by public auction. It is also pointed out relying upon the provisions of section 6 of the partition Act that in an open spot sale everybody would know the reserved bid or the upset price fixed therein and the bid would be above that.
18. I may usefully refer in this regard to the Halsbury‟s Laws of England Volume 2 Fourth Edition for what an „auction‟ means. Para 701 on page 360 is relevant. According to Halsbury‟s Laws of England, "the auction is a manner of selling or letting property by bids, usually to the highest bidder by public competition. The prices which the public are asked to pay are the highest which those who bid can be tempted to offer by the skill and tact of the auctioneer under the excitement of open competition. "It is thus clear that an auction is held by public competition wherein every bidder has right to raise his own bid. It is also clear that in public auction, the atmosphere therein created by open bidding can tempt the bidder to raise his bid and thus enhanced price can be fetched by the said mode.
19. In a sale by tender, however, no such opportunity is available to the tenderer. Once he gives his offer that is final and cannot be raised, whereas in public auction each bidder knows the bid of the other person. In the mode of sale by calling for offers or tenders, none of the persons or tenders know the price offered by the other. In regard to the tenders, it is observed in Halsbury‟s Laws of England, Volume 9, and Fourth Edition para 230 on page 101 that "an advertisement that goods or services are to be bought or sold by tenders, is not prima facie, an offer to sell to the person making the highest tender". It is, therefore, clear that by sale by tender or by calling for offers, the highest bid need not be accepted.
20. There is thus a substantial distinction between the sale by calling for offers through advertisement and the sale by public auction. By no stretch of imagination a sale by calling for offers through advertisement can be said to be a sale by public auction. By relying upon the decision of this Court in Digambar Tatya Utpat vs. Hari Damodar Utpat (AIR 1927 Bombay 143), it is submitted on behalf of the non- applicant No. 7 that there can be a limited court auction in which the class of bidders can be restricted. In my view, the said analogy is not apt. Even in the case of limited auction the principal characteristic of an auction sale about raising a 14 ST/42635/2014 bid at the spot would remain present which is totally absent when there is sale by tender or by calling for offers."
Further, Learned Advocate has drawn our attention to the Tribunal's Final Order No. 40978/2019 dated 30.07.2019 rendered in respect of M/s. Attur Agricultural Producers Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd. Vs. CCE, Salem, wherein it has been held as under:-
"10. We have considered the arguments on both sides and perused the records. As far as Auctioneers‟ Service is concerned, it can be levied on the service of auctioning. Undisputedly, in the present case, as recorded in the impugned order itself, the appellants are selling goods through tender and NOT through auctions. The Auctioneer's service does not cover the service of tender. As far as the demand under BSS is concerned, evidently, the cooperative society is engaged in the business of lending money to their members and have been collecting some charge towards appraising the value of the pledged jewels in the process. This is not service rendered to anybody at all. It is true that, in turn, the appellant has been borrowing money from their bank but it does not mean that the appellant is supporting service of the bank. They are borrowing money from the bank on their account and in turn lending it to their members. In view of the above, we find that demands on both these counts are not sustainable and need to be set aside and we do so. Consequently, the demand of interest and penalties also deserve to be set aside. The impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, ifany, as per law."
We find that the facts for our consideration in this appeal are identical. The marketing and other services rendered by the appellant to their farmer members in selling their agricultural produce through tender process would not be coming under "Auctioneer's Service" under Section 65 (105)(zzzr) of the Finance Act, 1994.
5.2 On the issue of BSS, the facts indicate that the appellants are taking loans from M/s. Salem District Central Co-operative Finance Bank and utilizing this money in providing jewel loans to their farmer members. Thus, the appellant is borrowing the money from the bank on its account and in turn lending it to their farmer members on interest. The services rendered by the appellant are relatable only to its 15 ST/42635/2014 members and not to the bank and the charges collected for appraising jewels before sanctioning of loans are in the nature of cost incurred by the appellant for sanctioning of loans. As such, there is no BSS rendered in the instant case. As such, we hold that the demands raised under the impugned orders demanding service tax under "Auctioneer Service" and BAS are not maintainable.
5.3 Regarding non-payment of service tax on transport of goods by road, the appellants have undertaken the work of lifting and delivering of goods to the ration shops under the Public Distribution System. The service is covered under GTA and in terms of Rule 2(1)(d)(v) of STR,1994, read with Notification No. 36/2004-ST dated 31.12.2004, the liability to pay service tax is on the person who pays the freight where the consignor or consignee of goods is any co-operative society. As such, the appellant is covered under the provisions of Section 65 (50b) of the Finance Act, 1994. The period of dispute in this appeal is from April,2006 to March, 2011 and reportedly the appellant has undertaken transportation of not only food grains and pulses but also sugar and other articles. The exemption for transport of food grains and pulses is available only with effect from 29th February, 2010. We note that there is a finding in the Order-in-Original that the appellant has failed to give any evidence in order to claim exemption under Notification No. 32/2004-ST which provides for 75% abatement if the transporter has certified as to non-availment of cenvat benefit and also the benefit of Notification No. 34/2004-ST where freight paid on individual consignment upto Rs. 750/- and multi-consignment freight upto Rs. 1500/- exempted from payment of tax. The appellants have failed to submit consignment notes, freight vouchers, ledger account details etc. in order to substantiate their claim for these exemptions.
5.4 We find that learned advocate has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of M/s. Mutual Industries Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CST, Vapi (supra), wherein it was held that denial of benefit of 75% exemption under GTA services for want of endorsement on the consignment note to the effect of nonavailment of Cenvat credit is not maintainable. Considering this decision, we have to hold that the appellant is eligible for the benefit of Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 in computation of the demand of service tax payable for GTA service rendered.
16ST/42635/2014 5.5 On the issue of invoking the extended period, we find that the appellant is a Co-operative Society and the issue is interpretational in nature. There were various notifications giving exemption and abatement in respect of GTA service during the relevant time. The appellants have put forth that no malafide can be attributed to evade payment of service tax and non- payment of service tax was due to the bonafide belief and there was no deliberate intention for not paying tax and it is the responsibility of the Revenue to discharge the burden that the appellants have deliberately omitted to pay tax. GTA service was introduced w.e.f. January 2005 and the understanding was that individual truck owners engaged would not fall under GTA service. The appellants had mostly undertaken carrying food and other items as part of PDS. So it cannot be said that appellant has wilfully suppressed any facts and so demand in respect of GTA invoking extended period cannot be sustained. As such, penalties imposed under Sections 77 & 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 are not warranted."
11. The statement of demand raised in this case is a combined one for all the three services viz., "Auctioneer's Service", "Business Support Service" and "Goods and Transport Agency Service". The amount of Service Tax demanded in each category is not ascertainable from the records and documents available in this appeal. The same is not also ascertainable either from the Statement of Demand No. 8/2013 dated 05.04.2013 or from the Order-in-Original No. 26/2014 JC(ST) dated 30.04.2014.
12. Further, the Original Adjudicating Authority has imposed mandatory penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, though period involved in this Statement of Demand covering normal period for the reason that the Appellant had failed to submit prescribed half-yearly ST-3 returns. We are of the opinion that imposing penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is not at all justified in the facts and circumstances of this case and so, we order to set aside the same.
17ST/42635/2014
13. On the issue of payment of Service Tax on the GTA services, the Appellant has sought (i) the benefit of 75% abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 where the transporter has to certify as to non-availment of CENVAT benefit (ii) the benefit of Notification No. 34/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 where freight paid on individual consignment upto Rs.750/- and multi-consignment freight upto Rs.1500/- get exempted from payment of tax and (iii) exemption for transport of food grains and pulses w.e.f. 29.02.2010 under Notification No. 33/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004. The period of dispute involved in this case is 01.10.2011 to 30.06.2012. As such, it is required to re-compute the GTA Service Tax payable by the Appellant after extending the benefit of the Notification No. 32/2004-ST and Notification No. 34/2004-ST and also for carriage of food grains and pulses under Notification No. 33/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 subject to fulfillment of conditions by the Appellant considering the facts obtaining in this appeal.
14. In view of the above detailed reasoning, we hold that the demand confirmed against the Appellant under "Auctioneer‟s Service" and "Business Support Service" is not justified and we order to set aside the impugned Orders-in-Appeal Nos. 179&180/2014-ST dated 02.09.2014 to that extent. Regarding demand of Service Tax on GTA Service, the Lower Adjudicating Authority is directed to re-compute the tax payable giving the benefit of abatement under Notification No. 32/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004 and exemption benefit under Notification No. 34/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004. GTA Service undertaken for carriage of food grains and pulses is also exempted 18 ST/42635/2014 from payment of Service Tax w.e.f. 29.02.2010 under Notification No. 33/2004-ST dated 03.12.2004. Thus, demand of Service Tax, interest and imposition of penalty are set aside in respect of Auctioneer‟s Service and Business Support Service. For computation of Service Tax on GTA services, the issue is remanded to the Original Adjudicating Authority which is required to be paid by the Appellant along with interest.
15. Thus, the appeal is partly allowed and partly remanded.
(Order pronounced in open court on 01.02.2024) Sd/- Sd/-
(VASA SESHAGIRI RAO) (P. DINESHA) MEMBER (TECHNICAL) MEMBER (JUDICIAL) MK