Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2020 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (2) TMI 1255 - AT - Service TaxBusiness Auxiliary Services - sale or service - promotion or marketing of goods produced or provided by or belonging to the client - demand of service tax alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly the appellants purchase the concentrate from the Coca Cola India. Learned Authorized Representative after referring to various terms of agreement argues stating that “all these conditions reflect that concentrate is only transferred for use and not sold to the bottler.” The fallacy in the arguments advanced is self evident if we refer to the definition of sale and purchase as per Section 2(h) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as it existed then. The said definition has been made applicable to Chapter V of Finance Act, 1994 as per Section 65 (121) ibid - in terms of Section 2(h) of Central Excise act, 1944 the transfer of possession for a consideration in normal course of trade would signify the sale. By stating that the goods namely concentrate was transferred for use by M/s Coca Cola India Pvt Ltd to the Appellant for consideration, a fact not in dispute, the sale of the goods in term of Central Excise Act, 1944 has occurred. The imposition of restrictions or conditions in respect of the usage and consumption of the concentrate, by the seller cannot alter that position. Hence there are no merit in the submission of the Authorized Representative that this transaction was not a truncation of sale but only “transfer to use”. There are no merits in the impugned order - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. The issue involved in the present appeal is squarely covered by the decisions of the tribunal in case of Superior Drinks Pvt Ltd [2019 (6) TMI 272 –CESTAT Mumbai]. This decision in turn follows the decisions rendered by the Delhi Bench in case of Narmada Drinks (P) Ltd reported at 2017 (3) TMI 1106 - CESTAT NEW DELHI and also in case of Narmada Drinks (P) Ltd reported at [ 2018 (6) TMI 899 - CESTAT NEW DELHI ]. Similar view has been expressed by the Allahabad Bench in case of Brindavan Bottlers Ltd [ 2019 (3) TMI 1428 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD ] and Mumbai Bench in case of SMV Beverages Pvt Ltd [ 2017 (3) TMI 942 - CESTAT MUMBAI ]. It was held in these decisions that
|