Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2013 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2013 (8) TMI 118 - CESTAT NEW DELHISale of liquors - Business Auxiliary services – Marketing service in relation to sale of goods (IMFL , Beer etc.) produced / belonging to the distilleries - Appellant a Government of Rajasthan Undertaking, registered under the Companies Act, 1956 is entrusted by the State Government with the business of purchase of IMFL and Beer (liquor) from manufacturers, transport of liquor to various depots of the appellant and for further sale thereon to various licensees (i.e. with the wholesale trade in liquor), with a view to regulate supply of liquor through conferring the exclusive privilege of purchase and sale in the wholesale thereof upon the appellant. As a consequence of the monopoly assumed by the State Government in this area and confirment of the privilege on the appellant, it is mandatory for all manufacturers/distilleries/suppliers to sell liquor in the State only through the canalising agency, namely the appellant – Held that:- Relying upon the Tribunal judgment dated 21.12.2010 in the case of Kerala State Beverages (Mfrg . & Mktg.) Corpn., it has been held that on analysis of the agreement between the appellant (RSBCL) and the manufacturers / distilleries, (illustrated by the agreement dated 31.03.2008 with M/s Khasa Distillery Company, Prop. Bhagat Industrial Corporation Limited), the conclusion that the ownership/property in liquor continues with the distilleries and has not passed to the appellant, is inescapable and compelling. The several clauses of the agreement clearly demonstrate this variety. On analysis of the several clauses of the agreement (referred to above), it is clear that the appellant was never the owner of the liquor nor had title in the liquor supplied to it. It was merely acting as the consignee of the goods belonging to the supplier/distilleries. Within the framework of the agreements, considered in the context of the taxable BAS, as defined in Sections 65 (19) read with 65(105) (zzb) of the Act, the conclusion is uncontestable that the appellant was rendering the taxable BAS since the appellant was clearly marketing and providing services in relation to sale of goods (IMFL , Beer etc.) produced / belonging to the distilleries – Decided against the Assessee. Extended period of Limitation - Held that:- The statement of the General Manager of the appellant was recorded in April 2008 under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 disclosed sufficient particulars of the activities of the appellant. The requisite information was provided by the appellant to Revenue only in bits and pieces. Eventually a show cause notice was issued on 11.07.2008, within three months of recording of the statement of the appellant's representative, under Section 14 - There was wilful suppression of relevant material with a view to evade liability to tax, cannot be faulted nor considered inconsistent with the statutory prescriptions that justify invocation of the extended period of limitation – Decided against the Assessee.
|