2010 (10) TMI 528

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... der the head 'Business Auxiliary Service' in terms of Section 65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19) of the Finance Act, 1994 for a total period, 1-4-2007 to 31-3-2008. He also demanded interest on tax. He also imposed penalties on the assessee. 2. After examining the records, we note that the appellant-corporation, which is an undertaking of the Kerala State Government, had the monopoly of procuring Foreign Liquor (Indian Made) manufactured in various private distilleries during the period of dispute. The appellants used to sell these products of the distilleries either through their own outlets or through independent dealers. Sales Tax was paid at this stage. It further appears from the records that the liquor supplied by the distill .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ration for supply, wherein the appellant-corporation described themselves to be monopoly purchaser and distributor of Foreign Liquor (Indian Made) in the State of Kerala. Another document referred to by the Counsel is a statement of the terms and conditions for registration of suppliers and for entering into Rate Contract for supply of foreign liquor to the Corporation. This document indicates that only those brands of Indian Made Foreign Liquor, Foreign Made Foreign Liquor and Beer, which have been registered with, the Kerala Excise Department, would be purchased by the appellant-corporation. This document also contains elaborate conditions relating to the pricing of the various brands of liquor. On the strength of these and other document .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... said that the demand of Service charges by the corporation is wholly arbitrary. The learned JCDR has also referred to a statement of the Authorised Signatory of the Corporation under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act. It is submitted that the functionary of the Corporation clearly' admitted the principal-to-agent relationship between distillers and the appellant and that the statement was never retracted. At this juncture, the learned Counsel for the appellant points out that the above admission of the Corporation was withdrawn. 4. At this stage, we do not want to examine the merits and demerits of any statement or affidavit inasmuch as no copy of the statement has been shown to us. The learned JCDR has invited our attention to an .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X