2025 (10) TMI 8

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... tax along with interest and penalties. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture, distribution and sale of aerated water (soft drink) under the brand name of 'The Coca-Cola Company' (in short 'TCCC'). The appellant entered into a Bottler's Agreement dated 01.05.2004 with TCCC under which it was authorized to prepare, pack and sell beverages of different flavours using concentrates. The appellant purchases the required concentrates from 'Coca-Cola India Pvt Ltd' (in short 'CCIPL') which is authorized by TCCC for this purpose. An audit of the appellant's records was conducted in July 2011, during which it was observed that TCCC had initiated various promotional schemes. Unde....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rindavan Bottlers Limited - 2019 (3) TMI 1428 - CESTAT Allahabad * Ludhiana Beverages Private Limited vs. CCE & ST, Ludhiana - 2021 (9) TMI 751 - CESTAT Chandigarh * Kandhari Beverages Private Limited vs. CCE & ST, Chandigarh-II - 2020 (3) TMI 913 - CESTAT Chandigarh * Wave Beverages Private Limited vs. CCE & ST, Ludhiana - 2020 (2) TMI 1255 - CESTAT Chandigarh 4.1 She further submits that the ratio of above cited decisions has also been followed by the various benches of the Tribunal across jurisdictions that the assessee is not promoting the concentrate but is promoting the beverages, which is its own goods and accordingly, no service tax is payable. For this, she relies on the following cases: * Superior Drinks Pvt Ltd vs. CCE, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... sale should be of goods produced or provided or belonging to the client. Further, she also submits that department though alleged that the appellant is engaged in promotion or marketing of goods belonging to its client i.e. CCIPL, but did not specify or establish what goods were promoted. She also submits that the appellant is not engaged in promotion or marketing of such concentrates which is neither commercial nor scope for the appellant to promote the same. She further submits that the beverages which were promoted by the appellant, belong to the appellant itself as the appellant is the manufacturer. She also submits that it is a settled law that there can be no BAS when an entity is merely marketing or promoting its own goods. In this....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....CGST, Jodhpur - 2023 (8) Centax 209 (Tri. Del.) affirmed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2023 (8) Centax 210 (SC) * Hoshiarpur Automobiles vs. CCE & ST, Ludhiana - 2024 (4) TMI 432 - CESTAT Chandigarh 4.5 As regards the interest and penalties, the learned Counsel submits that when the demand of service tax is not sustainable then the question of interest and penalties does not arise. 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Revenue reiterates the findings of the impugned order. 6. After considering the submissions made by both the parties and perusal of the material on record, we find that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra and has been settled in various cases (cited above). 6.1 We ....