9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same assessee, we dispose off all these appeals by a common order. 3. Relevant facts that arise for consideration are the appellants herein are Kerala State Government undertaking, who is engaged in procurement and distribution of Indian Made Foreign Liquor (IMFL) and Foreign Made Foreign Liquor (FMFL), wine and beer in the State of Kerala pursuant to the policy adopted in this regard by the State Government of Kerala. The appellant herein received liquor from various manufacturers who are distilleries, brewery, blending unit based upon the rate contract entered for supplies every year on outcome of the participation in tenders. On a specific intelligence that the appellant received liquors from the supplier was not a buyer but as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Constitution Bench of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Maharastra Distilleries - 2005 (11) SCC 1 and the subsequent judgment dated 22.1.2010 would conclude the issue in favour of revenue. It is his submission that while coming to the conclusion in Final Order No.116 to 119/2011 dated 21.12.2010, this Bench has not considered the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Kerala in the appellant s own case and which has been upheld by the Supreme Court. It is his submission that the Hon ble High Court after following the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Kerala Vs. Maharastra Distilleries (supra) held that the value of excise duty has to be included for payment of turnover tax. He would submit that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s engaged in an activity akin to trading and the activities undertaken by the appellant is nothing but a sale of liquor and cannot be held as services rendered to the distilleries. The ratio of our judgment in the appellant s own case is to be seen from paragraph 10 onwards and to reach conclusion we had considered the entire factual matrix like the tender document floated by the appellant and the terms and conditions of the contracts and the statutory provisions. In our view, the issue is already decided in favour of the assessee in our Final Order No.116 to 119/2010 dated 21.12.2010. We do not find any reason to deviate from said view and hence, we are of the considered opinion that the ratio in the appellant s own case needs to be follow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
