Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (1) TMI 1375

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... end customers. The period of dispute is from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2011, for which the show cause notice dated 19.10.2012 came to be issued, by invoking the larger period of limitation, for which the finding given in the OIO is that the receipt of incentive was noticed only on the scrutiny of annual financial records of the appellant. The same was therefore held to have been knowingly suppressed, to justify the issuance of the show cause notice under Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994 - There is also no specific logical finding that the early payment incentive received by the appellant was liable to service tax other than mentioning that the same was liable to service tax under BAS. Hence, the Revenue has failed to make out a case for i .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 0/-- per MT. 2. The case of the Revenue is that from the record of the assessee and during the course of audit of their accounts, it was found that the assessee had received early payment incentive from their suppliers. The OIO also reveals that there was an Agreement of Consignment Stockiest and as per the Del Credere Agreement with M/s.Haldia; all discounts, as per M/s.Haldia's Policy, claimed by the appellant on behalf of the customers in respect of sales made should be passed on immediately to the customers by the appellant on receipt of the credit advice from M/s.Haldia. The Revenue appears to have found out that in certain cases, the appellant itself would make payments to M/s.Haldia on behalf of end--customers and thereby retain the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the approved Consignment Stockiest Agent as well as Del Credere Agent for M/s.Haldia, they would get commission at fixed rates on which they were discharging their service tax liability regularly, 2.1 It was contended that as DC Agent type of sale, they procured orders from customers and M/s.Haldia would send the goods directly to the buyers; the customers would make payment directly to M/s.Haldia and for procuring orders, they were paid a commission of ₹350 per MT; 2.2 In so far as their consignment agency was concerned, they were paid a commission of ₹550 per MT of High Density Polyethelene; 2.3 In respect of both the above types of service/sales, settlement of price to the supplier was their responsibility and that the sup .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt. The above discussion prompted the Adjudicating Authority to conclude that the appellant had provided service to its customers in relation to procurement of goods and received considerations from M/s.Haldia by keeping the discounts meant to final customers and hence the early payment discount and incentive received by the appellant for provision of the services fell under 'Business Auxiliary Service' and hence the shortcut notice was correctly issued demanding the service tax thereon. 3. Heard Sri Satish Chandrasekaran, ld. Advocate for the appellant and Smt. O.M. Reena, ld. Addl. Commissioner, for the Respondent; we have carefully perused the orders of lower authorities as well as the SCN. 4. The issue to be decided is, "whether the R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... re they made early payment, such discounts were offered which would happen only when they received sale amount in advance or at an early date from the end--customers. 6. Per contra, ld. Additional Commissioner relied on the findings in the impugned order. 7. We find that it is not the case of the Revenue that in every case where the early payment incentive is received, the end--customers had in fact made payments in advance or at an early date. But there is no cross verification as to the payments made in advance by the appellant vis--à--vis the payments made by the end customers. 8. It is a case where the Revenue is charging the appellant for the amount received as early payment incentive under 'BAS', but Section 65(19)(iv) does .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates