TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 622X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for delivery. It was found that the product order, dispatch instructions etc are given by M/s ACE Calderys Limited, and even particulars of the party to whom supply is made is given by M/s ACE Calderys Limited alongwith the quantity to be dispatched, the billing rate etc. Thereafter, in the invoice prepared for payment of Excise, M/s ACE Calderys Limited is shown as the consignee and the person to whom the purchase is made is shown as the purchaser of M/s ACE Calderys Limited. The appellant company raises commercial invoices in the name of M/s ACE Calderys Limited on mutually agreed prices. It was also found that documents required for Excise Act, Central Sales Act and General Sales Tax are issued to the appellant by M/s ACE Calderys Limite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TDS on payment made to M/s ACE Calderys Limited. The Assessing Officer having added this amount on account of non-deduction of TDS, but the Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Appellate Tribunal having held that the transaction is in the nature of principal to principal and not principal to agent basis, this appeal has been filed. 4- Even though Shri Sanjay Lal, learned counsel for the appellant, referred to section 194-H and various other provisions to say that the relationship between the assessee and M/s ACE Calderys Limited is that of a principal and an agent and as the amount paid to M/s ACE Calderys Limited is in the form of commission or brokerage, the deduction of TDS was mandatory. We find that this aspect of the matter has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t by M/s ACE Calderys Limited, who was responsible for making payment of commercial invoices raised by the appellant company and the responsibility of settlement of any dispute for loss etc was solely on M/s ACE Calderys Limited. Infact after evaluating various aspects of the matter, it has been found that M/s ACE Calderys Limited is not a broker and, therefore, interference has been made. 5- It was also tried to be indicated that the Tribunal has committed an error by not deciding the revenue s ground of appeal to say that without appreciating the fact the orders passed under section 201(1) and 201(1-A) dated 28.3.2011 were not for the years 2008-2009, 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, but this has also been interfered with. We have considered t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
