2025 (1) TMI 1204

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the period April 2012 to June 2012. 3. The appellant was engaged in the supply and sale of simcard with top-up recharge. A show cause notice dated 11.04.2014 was issued to the appellant alleging that the appellant did not discharge service tax liability on the discount/commission/incentives received from M/s. Vodafone Digilink by way of marketing, selling and distribution of Vodafone products. Accordingly, the appellant was called upon to show cause why service tax demand for the said service should not be recovered with interest and penalty. 4. The appellant filed a reply to the show cause notice and denied the allegations. The Deputy Commissioner, however, by order dated 21.07.2016 confirmed the demand. The appellant filed an appeal bef....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... be determined with reference to the circumstances and the conduct of parties; that in the present case, they were definitely acting as agent of the company as regards transactions as stated in above; they had sold the goods to retailers / end customers on behalf of the company; that the Company has to have responsibi.ity over the produets sold by them to their Customers; that they were liable to make payment to the Company at price agreed by them for the products. This income on account of commission attracts Service Tax under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Service' as defined under Section 65 of the Finance Act, 1994 (as amended). hus, comparison of definition of Business auxiliary clause (ii) with that of meaning of Distribu....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Poly Films Pvt Ltd. vs. CCE, Delhi [2018(2) TMI 576-CESTAT New Delhi]. 8. In Chote Lal Radhey Shyam, a Division Bench of this Tribunal while examining this issue, held as follows: "We have heard both the sides and perused the records. On perusal of the records, we find that, in this case, BSNL had already paid service tax on the sim cards and recharge coupons sold to the franchisee and again demanding service tax from the franchisee would amount to double taxation which is not permissible in law. Secondly, we find that the appellant is only engaged in purchase and sale of sim cards and recharge coupons and his relationship with BSNL is of principal-to-principal basis. The appellant cannot be termed as an agent of BSNL. In view of this, t....