M\/s. R.S. Granite Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of GST & CE (Chennai-North)
Service Tax
2019 (1) TMI 1179 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 23-1-2019
Appeal No. ST\/42302\/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 40155\/2019
Service Tax
Shri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial)
\nShri P.C. Anand, Consultant, for the Appellant
\nShri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nA Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 31.05.2017 was issued covering the periods October, 2014 to March, 2016 alleging interalia that the commission received by the appellant from the appellant's service recipients located outside India, was liable to service tax as per the amended Rule 2 (f) of the Places of Provisions of Services Rules, 2012 (POPS) w.e.f. 01.10.2014. After considering the explanation filed by the assessee, the adjudicating authority vide Order-in-Original No. 6\/2018 dated 05.02.2018 confirmed the proposed demand and consequently appropriated the payments made towards<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n d not include a person providing the main service. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n s a provision of a service (hereinafter called the 'main' service) or a supply of goods, between two or more persons, but does not include a person who provides the main service or supplies the goods on his account'”. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n n 46\/2016-Service Tax = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. R.S. Granite Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of GST & CE (Chennai-North)Service Tax2019 (1) TMI 1179 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 23-1-2019Appeal No. ST\/42302\/2018 – FINAL ORDER NO. 40155\/2019Service TaxShri P. Dinesha, Member (Judicial) Shri P.C. Anand, Consultant, for the Appellant Shri L. Nandakumar, AC (AR) for the Respondent … Continue reading “M\/s. R.S. Granite Machine Tools Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of GST & CE (Chennai-North)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16314","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16314","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=16314"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16314\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16314"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16314"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16314"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n * Appellant's main and only service is obtaining orders from the Indian customers and passing on the same to the foreign manufacturer\/appellant's Principals
\n * The words 'supply of goods' inserted post amendment is not in addition to the facilitation of a service since, there is 'or' in between.
\n * Right from the beginning, facilitating the provision of service by identifying the Indian customers and obtaining orders is the only and main service of the appellants.
\n * The extract of education guide published by CBEC made it further clear that a commission agent who buys and sells goods is not an intermediary.
\n * Rule 3 of the POPS makes it clear that the place of provision of service shall be the location of the service recipient whereas Rule 9 ibid prescribes the place of provision of specified services in the nature of intermediary services is that of the location of the service provider, etc.
\nHe also relied on the following ca<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4.2 It is not the case of the Revenue that the appellant arranges or facilitates other services as well, in addition to the above, to its 'Principals' nor is the case of the Revenue that the appellant had suppressed the provision of any other service. The Revenue has also nowhere disputed the above service rendered by the appellant, ie., procuring\/obtaining orders for its Principals located outside the taxable territory, for which the commission is paid by its Principals as also the fact of that obtaining orders from the Indian customers is the main and the only service rendered by the appellant. I find the above service is a taxable service but for the fact that it is an export of service and the same stood exempted for all the preceding years. This fact is also vouched<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n(c) Intermediary services:
\n(d) Service consisting of hiring of means of transport other than, – (i) aircrafts, and (ii) vessels except yachts upto a period of one month.”
\n4.4 On perusal of the above Rules, I find that Rule 3 is the general Rule whereas, Rule 9 is specific and also covers 'intermediary service'. Therefore, if the service of the appellant herein is held to be that of intermediary services, then Rule 9 will automatically apply. If not, Rule 3 will apply. Rule 2 (f) excludes the services of intermediary if the person whose main service is arranging or facilitating a provision of service, which also stands automatically excluded from the purview of Rule 9 and thus would fall under Rule 3.
\n5. The facts of the case as analysed elsewhere in this order, make it clear that obtaining\/procuring order for its foreign Principals is the main service rendered by the appellant and consequently, rigors Rule 9 vis-à-vis Rule 2 (f) are not applicable. In v<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n