Case Law Details
Commissioner of Service Tax Vs Sidh Designers Pvt Ltd (CESTAT Delhi)
CESTAT Delhi held that mere use of the word “commission” in the clause dealing with terms of payment would not mean that “commission” was paid by the seller. The goods were sold on principal to principal basis and payment to buyer was expenses incurred by overseas buyer and not commission. Hence, service tax not payable.
Facts- The issue involved in all the appeals is as to whether the amount paid by the respondents to overseas companies situated in Dubai and shown as “commission” in the shipping documents in relation to export of readymade garments by the respondents is liable to be taxed under “business auxiliary service”, as defined under section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994.
The show cause notices alleged that the respondents, who are engaged in the business of export of readymade garments, had availed the services of foreign based commission agents in Dubai who procured orders for the respondents and ensured payments after deducting their commissions @ 12.5%, which is also reflected in the export invoices and shipping bills. The said services, it was alleged in the show cause notices provided by the foreign commission agents to the respondents, would be classifiable under BAS.
Conclusion- Here that mere use of the word “commission” in the clause dealing with terms of payment would, in view of the aforesaid decisions, not mean that “commission” was paid by the seller. There is no third person who can be said to be acting an agent and the goods were undoubtedly sold on a principal to principal basis. What was actually deducted from the payment to be made by the buyer was the expenses incurred by the overseas buyer and not commission.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
