Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Cce, Chandigarh vs M/S Ashu Forex Pvt. Ltd on 26 July, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
West Block No. 2, R.K. Puram, New Delhi 110 066.
Date of Hearing : 26.07.2013
Date of Decision : 26.07.2013
ST/Cross/62/2009
ST/673/2008
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 421/CE/CHD/2008 dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh]
For Approval & Signature:
Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. Sahab 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?
No
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
Yes
3.
Whether their Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
Seen
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
Yes
CCE, Chandigarh Appellant
Vs.
M/s Ashu Forex Pvt. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri Amresh Jain, DR - for the Appellant
None - for the Respondent
Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. Sahab Singh, Member (Technical)
Final ORDER NO. 57179/2013
Per Sahab Singh :
This appeal is filed by Revenue against the Order-In-Appeal No. 421/CE/CHD/2008 dated 12.08.2008 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Chandigarh.
2. Brief facts of the case are that M/s Ashu Forex Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as respondents) are working as sub-agent of M/s AFL Mumbai who in turn are working as Principal Representative of Western Union Money Transfer Services, Ireland. Respondents are rendering the services of paying money to the designated recipient on behalf of Wall Street Finance Ltd. And are helping in transferring Foreign Exchange to the Indian recipient Department is of the view that activity of respondent is covered under the category of Business Auxiliary Service and accordingly the Show Cause Notice dated 30.04.2007 was issued to the respondent demanding service tax amounting Rs. 57,404/- alongwith interest and also proposing penalties under Section76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act. Show Cause Notice was adjudicated by Assistant Commissioner vide Order-In-Original No. 79/2007 dated 22.02.2008 confirming the service tax amount along interest and also imposing penalty equal to the tax both under Section 76,77 of the Act and also imposing of Rs. 1000/- under Section 77 of the Act. This order was challenged by the respondents before the Commissioners (Appeal) Custom Central Excise Chandigarh who vide the impugned order set aside the Order-In-Original and allowed the partys appeal. Revenue has challenged the impugned order in the present appeal.
3. Ld. DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) is not proper and legal in holding that activities of the respondent do not fall under the category of Business Auxiliary Service. He submits that as per terms and conditions of the agreement the activities by the respondent are not limited to delivery of the money to the ultimate beneficiary but are also extended to advertise & promotion of the money transfer service. By advertisement and promotion of money transfer they promote the Western Union and such activity clearly falls under Business Auxiliary Service. Therefore Commissioner (Appeal) has not appreciated the activities of the respondent in proper perspective and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) is therefore needs to be set aside.
4. None appeared for the respondent despite notice.
5. We find that the respondents are working sub-agent of M/s AFL Ltd. Mumbai who in turn work as a principal representative of M/s Western Union. The main function of the respondents is delivery of money to the ultimate beneficiary in India as per directions given by their principal representative for which the respondents get commission. The issue before us is whether the activity is liable to service tax under Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.
6. The issue came for decision before this Tribunal and the Tribunal in case of Paul Merchants Ltd. reported in 2013 (29) STR 257 (Tri.-Del.) by majority decision has held that advertisement and sale promotion by agent/ sub-agent is to be treated as export of the service and therefore no liable to the service tax. Fallowing the said decision we are of the view that activity under taken by the respondents are not liable to service tax being the export of service. Accordingly we uphold the Order-In-Appeal and reject the revenues appeal.
(Justice G. Raghuram) President (Sahab Singh) Member (Technical) Neha 2