9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 684X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, is paid to the Appellant by Tata Tele Services to compensate for the loss incurred by the Appellant on the sale of mobile handsets at a lower price and cannot be said to have any relation to the service of promotion or marketing. Thus, in the absence of any services provided by the Appellant to Tata Tele Services, service tax could not have been levied on the amount of subsidy received by the Appellant. Appeal allowed. - SHRI JUSTICE DILIP GUPTA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI P.V. SUBBA RAO, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Ms. Shohini, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Manoj Kumar, Authorized Representative (DR) for the Department ORDER The order dated 18.01.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of two appeals filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t it also decided to engage itself in the business of selling mobile handsets and for this it paid VAT on such sales. The Appellant claims that for this business separate agreements were entered into by the Appellant with third party manufacturers/vendors for supply of handsets sold by the Appellant to the customers. The invoices were raised by the vendors in the name of the Appellant and the Appellant was responsible for making payments to such vendors. According to the Appellant, Tata Tele Services was in no way connected with the payment to the vendors from whom the Appellant purchased the handsets. However, the handsets were sold by the Appellant at a price fixed by Tata Tele Services, which price was lower than the purchase price of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dsets and that they were not involved in sales/promotion/marketing of CDMA handsets belonging to Tata Tele Services. It was pointed out that the subsidy was provided to the appellant to compensate it for the loss incurred on sale of handsets at a lesser price and not for marketing/promotional service of Tata Tele Services . 7. The Assistant Commissioner, however, by the order dated 30.05.2014, confirmed the demand. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal which has been dismissed by order dated 18.01.2018 but the penalties have been set aside. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that Service Tax Appeal No. 51743 of 2018 filed by the appellant for the earlier period from 2006 to 2010 has been allowed by an order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
