9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 409X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent of NMDC and charged service tax on the 3% of the sale value retained by them. The appellant is not liable to pay service tax - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. ST/1520/2010 - A/31571/2018 - Dated:- 13-11-2018 - Mr. M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And Mr. P. VENKATA SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Shri K.S. Ravi Shankar, Shri A. Sarveswara Row, Shri N. Anand K.S. Naveen, Advocates for the Appellant. Shri Guna Ranjan, Superintendent (AR) for the Respondent. ORDER Per: P. Venkata Subba Rao The appellant herein is a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU). As per the Exim policy of the Government, the appellant is acting as the canalizing agency for import and export of minerals. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yer is indicated as M/s MMTC, Visakhapatnam. He further showed us the certificate issued by M/s MMTC indicating the total value of the goods which they had sold to M/s NMDC. He would further take us through the extract of ledgers of accounts of both these companies and argued that it is clear that the M/s NMDC is a supplier and M/s MMTC is the buyer. 3. He would submit that this aspect was clarified by the assessee. In their letter dated 18.06.2007, the Deputy Manager of M/s MMTC Ltd., clarified that there is no commission on services which they have paid to M/s NMDC as per their accounts. He would draw the attention of the Bench to the para 18 of the impugned order in which it is recorded as follows: All the exports are done in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid to NMDC for the goods is the sale value minus 3%. He relied on the following case laws: Kerala State Beverages (Mfrg Mktg) Corporation Vs. CCE, [2011 (23) STR 640 (Tri-Bang.)] Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Vs. CCE, [2018 (11) GSTL 157 (Raj.)] was affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court as reported in [2018 (16) GSTL J131(S.C.)]. He, therefore, would argue that the demand in the impugned order needs to be set aside along with interest and penalties. 4. Learned Departmental Representative reiterates the findings of the lower authority. He submits that the sale is not completed in the case of transaction between NMDC and MMTC. On perusal of contract between the NMDC and MMTC that all expenses and associated up to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sale between the appellant and the supplier NMDC. Once the sale is established it is an immaterial at what point of time the title of the goods gets transferred. In this case the title gets transferred as soon as the ship sails. It is also clearly reflected in the impugned order that all records showed that there was sales and purchase between the two organizations. Under these circumstances, we unable to agree with the contention of the Revenue, that the appellant should be treated as an agent of NMDC and charged service tax on the 3% of the sale value retained by them. Following the ratio of the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation as affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court, w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
