TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1229
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 4. on careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides. We find that the very same issue has been considered in receipt of number of distributors by Delhi Bench in the case of Charanjeet Singh Khanuja Vs. CST, Indore/ Lucknow/ Jaipur/ Ludhiyana 2016 (41) STR 213 Tri-Del), wherein the principle was laid down that which commission will attract the service tax and which will not, since the demand made on the consolidated amount, for the purpose of verification and re-quantification, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority. 4. We find that the appellant is similarly placed distributor of Amway India Enterprise Pvt Ltd, as the various distributo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tributor also gets a commission from Amway from 6% to 21% depending upon the purchases of Amway products during the month for sale or for personal consumption. Thus, depending upon the purchases made by the distributor during a month from Amway, he gets a commission/bonus varying from 6% to 21%. This is the second stream of income of the distributor; (c) A Distributor also gets monthly commission on the basis of the success and productivity as defined by the products' sales of the distributors appointed through him which constitute his sales group. 10. In these cases, the Service tax has been demanded on the gross amount of commission received by each of the Distributors (assessees) of Amway during the period of dispute, as mentioned in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for the client; or xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx " 12. According to the Department, the activity of the assessees is "promotion or marketing or sale of the goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client." In our view, the activity which is covered under Section 19(i) is in relation to the promotion or marketing or sale of the goods produced by the client or provided by the client or belonging to the client. This expression, in our view, would not cover the sale of the goods by a person, which belong to him, as the activity of the promotion or marketing or sale of the goods by a person belonging to him would not constitute service. The assessees in these cases are distributors, who purchase the goods from Amway at the Distributor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....way products/marketing of the Amway products and who on being sponsored by that Distributor are appointed by Amway as second level of distributors is, in our view, the activity of marketing or sale of the goods belonging to Amway and the commission received by the Distributor from Amway, which is linked to the performance of his sales group (group of the second level of distributors appointed on being sponsored by the Distributor) would have to be treated as consideration for Business Auxiliary Service of sales promotion provided to Amway. Therefore, service tax would be chargeable on the commission received by a Distributor from Amway on the products purchased by his sales group. However, in the impugned orders Service tax has been demande....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....son. When an individual engages himself in a commercial activity, he has to be treated as business or commercial concern. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that w.e.f. 1-5-2006 the term, „commercial concern' in Section 65(105)(zzb) was replaced by „any person', we are of the view that even during the period prior to 1-5-2006, the Business Auxiliary Service, even if provided by an individual to a client, was taxable. Moreover, in this group of appeals, the Appellants in Appeal No. ST/257/2011 and ST/259/2011 are proprietary firms who, without any doubt, are commercial concerns. 15. Another point of dispute is as to whether duty exemption under notification No. 5/2006-ST would be admissible to the Distributors in this group o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sees neither obtained service tax registration nor did they declare their activities to the jurisdictional Service tax authorities nor did they file ST-3 Return and, therefore, they are guilty of suppression of relevant facts and deliberate violation of the provisions of Finance Act, 1994 and of the Rules made thereunder with intent to evade payment of tax. On considering the rival submissions on this point, we are of the view merely because the assessees did not apply for Service Tax Registration or did not file ST-3 Returns or did not declare their activities to the jurisdictional central excise authorities, it cannot be inferred that this was a wilful act with intent to evade payment of service tax. We also take notice of the fact that i....