2017 (10) TMI 286

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the Appellant Shri K.P. Muralidharan, AC (AR) for the Respondent ORDER Brief facts of the case are that the appellants are engaged in the business of providing services to various yarn manufacturers and they collected service charges in the form of commission / brokerage / incentives. They discharged service tax liability on the commission received by them but did not discharge service t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....tted that the appellants were discharging service tax liability on the commission received by them. The incentives received by them is nothing to do with the rendering of service to the clients and therefore cannot be categorized as a taxable service. For the activities of promotion and marketing of goods, the appellants received commission, whereas incentive was paid to them for achieving targets....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... are receiving commission for the promotion and marketing of the goods for various manufacturers. Over and above this commission, the appellants are paid incentives for achieving sales targets. The issue is whether such incentives are subject to levy of service tax. In the judgment relied by the learned counsel for appellant, the issue whether discounts / incentives received by the advertising age....