2018 (11) TMI 1228

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....appellants were appointed as distributer for Recharge Coupon Voucher (RCV) by M/s Tata Sky Ltd. The appellant and M/s Tata Sky Ltd. entered into an agreement dated 13.04.2006. M/s Tata Sky Ltd. through their letter dated 01.04.2008 informed the appellant that RCV would be sold by M/s Tata Sky Ltd. to distributers at concessional rate and same would be further sold by authorized distributer to customers at MRP which was a higher price and the difference in purchase and sale price would constitutes margin for distributers. Revenue conducted enquiries with the appellant about the discount received and earned by the appellant for the financial year 2008-09 to 2011-12. Appellant informed the said figure to be around Rs. 36 lakhs. It was also gat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....clerical error at the time of booking of purchase of RCV, they bifurcated the total amount payable to M/s Tata Sky Ltd. into cost of RCV and service tax payable. Further, when appellant sold RCV to customers they again bifurcated the total amount recoverable into cost of RCV and service tax recoverable and due to aforesaid wrong entries made in the books of account their staff has shown said Cenvat credit availed and utilized in the ST-3 return and that appellant had not charged any service tax from their customers in the name of service tax. They further admitted that the confusion was created due to bifurcation of value in the invoice and it was unintentional mistake. They further contended that M/s Tata Sky Ltd. had paid service tax on t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ake Cenvat credit of service tax charged in the invoices and therefore, the impugned order is legal and proper. 5. We have carefully gone through the case records and submissions made by both the sides. From the record, we find that it was very clearly informed by M/s Tata Sky Ltd. through their letter dated 01.04.2008 that the distributers were purchasing RCVs from M/s Tata Sky Ltd. at discounted price and selling the same at MRP to the customers and retaining the different between the two as profit. We, therefore, find that different between the purchased and sales price is not commission and not covered by 'Business Auxiliary Service'. We find that it is clear case of sale and purchase which is not covered by the provisions of service....