TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 1353
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling under CETH 3923.90 and supplying the same to M/s. Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. During the course of audit of appellant's records it appeared that appellant was raising debit notes in the name of M/s. Yomica Fabrics, Jambusar and M/s. Muscat Polymers, Rajkot, towards procuring of orders, forwarding invoices and for collection of payments for HDPE/PP woven sacks on behalf of M/s. Yomica Fabrics and M/s. Muscat Polymers. It was alleged in the show cause notice dated 27-4-2005 that the activities undertaken by the appellant appeared to be liable to Service Tax by providing Business Auxiliary Services (BAS) and that the amount received as debit notes is in the nature of commission amount. Adjudicating Authority vide OIO dated 23-1-2006 dropp....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ii) Karakkattu Communicators v. CCE, Cochin [2007 (8) S.T.R. 164 (Tri.-Bang.)] (iii) Andhra Pradesh Paper Mills Ltd v. CCE, Vishakhapatnam-II [2007 (8) S.T.R. 166 (Tri.-Bang.)] (iv) Pratap Singh & Sons v. CCE, Mumbai-I [2007 (5) S.T.R. 389 (Tri.-Mumbai)] 4. Sh. G.P. Thomas (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue defended the OIR passed by the Commissioner and argued that amount received by the appellant, as a result of debit notes raised, is nothing else but a commission received for rendering certain services. 5. Heard both sides and perused the case records. The issue involved in the present appeal is whether the activities undertaken by the appellant is a buying and selling activi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n if, no service charges are being collected by the appellant. Further the department took the view that special discount given by the above manufacturers should be treated as service charges and accordingly, confirmed service tax on the discount. 5. The appellant have purchased and sold from the principals as their distributor. On purchase of the goods, the ownership changes to the appellant and as owner, dealer or transferee of the goods, it was in his own interest to promote the sales activities and to make advertisement and keep the trained salesman and hence, they are part of the dealers job. This cannot be treated as service rendered to the principals namely the manufacturers. If there was any special relationship or additional....