Tribunal remands case for lack of evidence on trade margins.

The Tribunal remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration as the appellant, M/s. Khadi & Village Industries Commission (KVIC), failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to establish that the trade margins collected on sales to public sector undertakings were part of trading activities and not subject to service tax. The appellant was directed to present purchase and sales invoices to support their claim. The Tribunal found that KVIC's activities were primarily trading and not business support services subject to service tax, but required further evidence for verification.

---

---

Issues involved:
Service tax demand confirmation against the appellant by the adjudicating authority under Sections 70 & 77 of the Finance Act, 1994 for trade margins collected on goods sold to public sector undertakings.

Analysis:
The appellant, M/s. Khadi & Village Industries Commission (KVIC), challenged the Order-in-Original confirming a service tax demand of Rs. 59,97,592/- along with penalties. The appellant purchases goods from village industries and sells them through retail outlets and to public sector undertakings. The dispute arose regarding the trade margins collected by the appellant on sales to PSUs, which the department considered as falling under 'support service of business or commerce' liable for service tax. The appellant contended that they are not providing business support services but are engaged in trading activities to promote Khadi and Village Industries. They argued that the trade margins were part of purchase and sales transactions and not taxable services.

The appellant, being a non-profit organization, purchases goods from village industrial units and sells them without acting as a commission agent. The trade discount of 3% received by the appellant is utilized to cover operational costs. The Tribunal found that the appellant's activities were primarily trading and not business support services subject to service tax. However, since the appellant failed to provide documentary evidence during the adjudication process to support their trading claim, the matter was remanded back to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration. The appellant was directed to present purchase and sales invoices to establish that their transactions were indeed trading activities and not taxable services.

The Tribunal disposed of the appeal by remanding the matter for fresh consideration, allowing the appellant to produce necessary documentary evidence to support their contention that the trade margins were part of trading activities and not subject to service tax. The stay petition was also disposed of accordingly.

---