9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 159X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed of by common order. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the appellants namely Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. and Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. are public sector undertakings owned by Government of India. They are engaged in marketing of petroleum products. The appellants purchase Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) from Mahanagar Gas Limited (MGL) and, thereafter, sell the same to their dealers. When the gas is supplied to the vehicles, the product has to be maintained at a particular pressure. Since the gas reaches these sale outlets through pipeline, it is not in the compressed form and, therefore, the gas has to be compressed before it is actually sold. In the various retail outlets of the appellants, the space has been provided to MG ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncerned authorities for opening and operating the retail outlets/installation of equipment etc. are to be obtained by the appellants and the appellants are also required to pay all municipal taxes, property taxes, rents etc. where the retail outlets operates. 4. The revenue is of the view that the services rendered by the appellants to M/s MGL are in relation to the marketing of the goods by M/s MGL and, therefore, it constitutes Business Auxiliary Services as defined under section 65(19) read with Section 65(105)(zzb) of the Finance Act, 1994. Accordingly, the levy of service tax along with interest and various penalties under the Finance Act, 1994 have been proposed by way of issue of show-cause notices. The show-cause notices were adjud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ices show commission, the department has wrongly presumed that the appellant has rendered a service. In fact, the so-called "commission" is nothing but trade margin available to the appellant for sale of the CNG. Therefore, the question of demanding service tax on this trade margin is not sustainable. He also relies on the decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Bhagyanagar Gas Ltd. 2013(291) ELT 75. 8. On the other hand, ld. AR appearing on behalf of the revenue submits that from the agreement entered into between the appellants and MGL, it is seen that the appellants are required to provide certain services such as earmarking specified area; making available utilities such as water, power etc., operating the equipment with the support ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re selling these CNG on payment of VAT/ST to the buyers. There is no commission component that have been received by the appellants from M/s MGL. For e.g. if the appellant is receiving goods from MGL at Rs. 100/- per kg. including VAT but these goods are sold by the appellant to customers on RSP fixed at Rs. 102/- per kg., that does not mean that the appellant are receiving commission of Rs. 2/- from MGL. In fact, the appellant are also paying VAT on Rs. 2/- also. It is also a fact that the appellants are not receiving any commission from M/s MGL. Moreover, the case law relied upon by the counsel in the case of Bhagyanagar Gas Ltd. (supra) also supports the cases in hand, wherein this Tribunal held that mere mention in the agreement the tra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
