9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (9) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ance Act, 1994 against the appellant, M/s. Khadi & Village Industries Commission, Vile Parle, Mumbai (KVIC in short). Aggrieved of the same, the appellant is before us. 2. The learned Consultant appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant purchases various goods, such as, khadi, soap and detergents, etc. from various units situated in villages. These goods are purchased in bulk from village industries and sold by the appellants through their retail outlets. The appellant also sells these goods to various public sector undertaking. As regards the supplies made by the appellant to PSUs, once the orders are procured from the PSUs, they are placed on the industrial units who are asked to supply the goods directly to the PSUs. Howeve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g activity undertaken by the appellant does not come under any taxable service at all and hence, the impugned demand is unsustainable in law. 2.2 It is further submitted that the appellant was unable to produce documentary evidence in support of their contention that the activity undertaken by them was nothing but trading before the adjudicating authority, by way of purchase and sales bills in respect of transactions undertaken by the appellant. If given an opportunity, all these evidences could be placed before the adjudicating authority for reconsideration of the matter. Accordingly, it is pleaded that the matter be remanded back to the adjudicating authority. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for the Revenue on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The said discount is for the purpose of meeting the operational costs of the appellant which is a non-profit organization. Nevertheless the transaction undertaken by the appellant is one of purchase and sale of goods; in other words it is simple trading. Therefore, the trade margin obtained by the appellant is not in the nature of a commission. Therefore, we are of the view that the activity undertaken by the appellant cannot be classified as business support services attracting levy of service tax. However, as contended by the appellant that they were not able to produce before the adjudicating authority, the documentary evidences (purchase and sales invoices) in support of their claim that the activity undertaken was trading. Therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
