2023 (11) TMI 684

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....l 2010 to March 2011. It has been pointed out by Ms. Shohini, learned counsel for the appellant that for the earlier period from April 2006 to March 2010, a Division Bench of this Tribunal in Service Tax Appeal No. 51743 of 2018 decided on 03.08.2023 (M/s Balaji Trading Company versus Commissioner of Central Excise Commissionerate, Jaipur) had set aside this order and allowed the appeal. She, therefore, submits that this appeal should also be allowed. 3. Learned authorized representative appearing for the department has, however, submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in Balaji Enterprises versus Commissioner of Centr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 4. The Appellant, therefore, claims that it was engaged in two business. The first was marketing of service products of Tata Tele Services for which the Appellant received a fixed commission and paid Service Tax. The second was sale of mobile handsets to customers either with the Tata Tele Services mobile communication or independently, depending upon the choice of the customers and it discharged its VAT liability on this sale". 5. A show cause notice was, however, issued to the appellant alleging that the difference between the purchase price and sale price that is reimbursed to the distributors by M/s Tata Tele-Services Ltd. in the guise of subsidy would be subjected to service tax because it relates to 'business auxiliary servic....