M\/s. Aviram Knitters Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore
Service Tax
2019 (2) TMI 92 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMI
CESTAT CHENNAI – AT
Dated:- 22-11-2018
Appeal No. ST\/126\/2011 – Final Order No. 43021\/2018
Service Tax
Ms. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical)
\nShri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate for the Appellant
\nMs. T. Usha Devi, DC (AR) for the Respondent
\nORDER
\nPer Bench
\nBrief facts are that the appellant had engaged overseas commission agents for procuring orders for their products namely 'Hosiery Garments'. They were paying commission to such foreign agents. On investigation, it was found that they had not paid the service tax on the commission paid to f<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Tribunal in the case of Texyard International Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Trichy – 2015 (40) STR 332 has held that levy of service tax cannot sustain in view of the exemption as per the notification. He also relied upon the decision in the case of M\/s. KPR Cotton Mills Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise – 2018-TIOL-433-CESTAT-MAD. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s. Aviram Knitters Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise CoimbatoreService Tax2019 (2) TMI 92 – CESTAT CHENNAI – TMICESTAT CHENNAI – ATDated:- 22-11-2018Appeal No. ST\/126\/2011 – Final Order No. 43021\/2018Service TaxMs. Sulekha Beevi C.S., Member (Judicial) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member (Technical) Shri M.N. Bharathi, Advocate for the Appellant Ms. T. Usha Devi, … Continue reading “M\/s. Aviram Knitters Versus Commissioner of GST & Central Excise Coimbatore”<\/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-16493","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16493","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=16493"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16493\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=16493"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=16493"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=16493"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n3. The ld. AR Ms. T. Usha Devi supported the findings in the impugned order.
\n4. Heard both sides.
\n5. The similar issue as to the demand of service tax for services of overseas commission agents for procurement of orders was analyzed by the Tribunal in the case of Texyard International (supra). The Tribunal in the said case observed that the assessee is eligible for exemption of the Notificati<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n