9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... one between the appellant and IGL on principal to principal basis - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/58538/2013 And ST/50922/2014 - ST/A/57596-57597/2017-CU[DB] - Dated:- 6-10-2017 - Shri Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial) And Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Ms. Shreya Daliya, Advocate for the appellant. Rep. by Shri Sanjay Jain, AR for the respondent. ORDER Per: Ashok Jindal Both the appeals are arising from a common issue, therefore, both the appeals are disposed of by a common order. 2. The demands of service tax have been confirmed against the appellants under the category of Business Auxiliary Service . The brief facts of the case are that the appellants viz. IOC i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellants by IGL on the terms and conditions specified in the agreement. As per the agreements, M/s IGL is to be provided adequate space at the site by the appellant for installation of the equipment and construction of proper foundation at the site. The appellants are liable to make provisions for supply of water, electricity and other utilities, the cost of which are borne by IGL. The appellants were also obliged to take due care of the equipment and ensured that the same were properly handled and the required safety provisions are followed and all statutory approvals of the concerned authorities for opening and operating the retail outlets / installation of equipment, etc. are to be obtained by the appellants and the appellants are also re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore, the impugned orders are to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, ld. AR appearing on behalf of the Revenue submits that as invoices are raised after sale, remittance made by IOCL to IGL and as per the agreement, the appellants are providing service to IGL and receiving commission thereof, therefore, they are liable to pay service tax on the services. 6. Heard the parties. Considered the submissions. 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that on identical set of facts and on the basis of the identical agreement, a case was booked against M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. (supra), wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- 11. As per the said provisions, the service provider p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s commission on which VAT/ST has been paid would not evidence the fact of rendering service. The contention of the ld. AR that the private parties are paying Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service on the same activity, therefore, the appellants are required to pay Service Tax is not acceptable as in the case of private parties, the invoices on the customers were raised by M/s. MGL directly and the private parties are receiving commission and there is no transaction on principal to principal basis. 8. We further find that as per the agreement, relationship between the parties had been defined in Clause 14.2 of the agreement, which is reproduced as under:- 14.2 During the term of this agreement, IOCL shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
