CST AHMEDABAD Vs. M/S. LANDMARK AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the Revenue against order in appeal No. 116/2011(STC)/K. ANPAZHAKAN/Commr. (A)/Ahd, dt. 24.05.11 vide which the first appellate authority has set aside the demands of service tax liability with interest and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority on the respondent. Heard both sides and perused the records.

(2.) THE issue involved in this case is regarding the discharge of service tax on the ground of commission received by the respondent from M/s. IFFCO -TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. The said commission has been given by M/s. IFFCO -TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. to the respondent as a licensed agent. The first appellate authority has held that as per the provisions of Rule 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Service Tax Rules, 1994 the respondent need not discharge the service tax liability and discharging of the service tax liability is casted on the insurance company. The first appellate authority has relied upon the certificate given by M/s. IFFCO -TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd. to that effect. In the grounds of appeal, Revenue has said that the certificate which has been produced by the respondent before the first appellate authority does not clarify the period to which service tax has been claimed to have been paid by the M/s. IFFCO -TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., and the first appellate authority has not verified the payment particulars made by the insurance company corresponding/relating to certificate in question and hence the order in appeal is bad in law and needs to be set aside.