Page 121 - GSTL_11th June 2020_Vol 37_Part 2

2020 ] ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD. v. COMMR. OF CGST & CX, BBSR 207
[Order per : Ashok Jindal, Member (J)]. - The appellant is in appeal
against the impugned order wherein the benefit of exemption Notification No.
6/2005-S.T., dated.1-3-2005 has been denied to them.
2. The facts of the case are that M/s. HFCL Infotel Limited (in short
M/s. HFCL) is a provider of communication services and has appointed the ap-
pellant as its direct marketing associates, local service agents and collection
agents for marketing of its communication services on behalf of M/s. HFCL. The
appellant is providing services to the customers of M/s. HFCL on behalf of M/s.
HFCL such as jumpering at distribution point, pulling drop wire from pole to
subscriber’s end, installation/maintenance of drop wiring, in house wiring and
DP, installation of wire line, CorDect and CDMA telephone set, selling of the
subscription of service and receiving collections thereof. The appellant is getting
commission from M/s. HFCL for undertaking the above activities on behalf of
M/s. HFCL. The activities of the appellant fell under the category of Business of
Auxiliary Service. The appellant started rendering Business Auxiliary Service to
the M/s. HFCL with effect from 1-4-2006 and availed the benefit of SSI exemp-
tion Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dated 1-3-2005. The same was denied to the
appellant on the ground that the appellant is providing branded services, there-
fore, they are not entitled for exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T., dat-
ed 1-3-2005.
3. Heard the appellant and considered the submissions.
4. We find that the facts are not in dispute that the appellant is a pro-
vider of services on behalf of M/s. HFCL and receiving commission from them.
The appellant receiving collections under the brand/trade name of M/s. HFCL
and the appellant is rendering Business Auxiliary Service to M/s. HFCL under
its own name. Therefore, the appellant is not providing any branded services. In
that circumstance, the benefit of exemption under Notification No. 6/2005-S.T.,
dated 1-3-2005 cannot be denied to the appellant. Therefore, we do not find any
merits in the impugned order and the same is set aside.
5. In the result, the appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any.
(Operative part of order was pronounced in the open Court)

_______

2020 (37) G.S.T.L. 207 (Tri. - Kolkata)

IN THE CESTAT, EASTERN BENCH, KOLKATA
[COURT NO. I]
Shri P.K. Choudhary, Member, (J)
ESSEL MINING & INDUSTRIES LTD.
Versus
COMMR. OF CGST & CX, BBSR

Final Order No. FO/76204/KOL/2019, dated 13-9-2019 in Appeal
No. ST/77372/2018
Refund - Export of services - Failure to furnish original input service
invoices certified by Chartered Accountant at the time of filing claim cannot
GST LAW TIMES  11th June 2020  121