9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t this prima facie stage, it can be safely concluded that the appellants cannot be held providing promotional services to the said distributors. Distribution agreement was examined by DGCEI in the year 2005. It is not the Revenue’s case that the agreement examined by Audit and by DGCEI were different. The DGCEI authorities having examined the distribution agreement and on being satisfied did not proceed ahead in the year 2005. As such, the issuance of show cause notice in 2009 invoking the longer period of limitation cannot be said to be a valid show cause notice. As such, we are of the view that the appellants have a good case on limitation also. Apart from the above, the appellants have deposited a part amount - By treating the same as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... four conditions listed in definition of the term franchise under Section 65(47) of the Finance Act. Inasmuch as they have not discharged the Service Tax on the said income so earned by them, they were issued notice proposing to recover the demand on the same. The notice also proposes to appropriate the Service Tax (including Education cess and Secondary and Higher Education cess) of Rs. 1,60,68,000/- already deposited by the appellants in respect of taxable services falling under the category of Business Auxiliary services , as also to appropriate the Service Tax of Rs. 46,08,759/- deposited by the appellant in respect of expenditure incurred in convertible foreign exchange under taxable category of Intellectual Property Right services ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act as independent contractors and does not have any relationship with the appellants brand name. They simply procure the goods from the appellants and further sell the same on commission basis. There is no representational right to their distributors to sell the goods in the market. And as such, at this prima facie stage, it can be safely concluded that the appellants cannot be held providing promotional services to the said distributors. 8. Apart from the fact that appellant has been able to make out a good case in their favour on merits, we also note admittedly investigations were conducted against the appellant by DGCEI during the year 2005. The distribution agreements were examined and thereafter the case was dropped. The Commissione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
