TMI Blog2018 (2) TMI 843X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld that service tax cannot be demanded under the category of Business Auxiliary Service as the gas has been sold by IGL to IOCL on principal to principal basis. The transaction between IGL and the appellant are on principal to principal basis. The appellant has been prohibited from holding himself as an agent of IGL. The agreement categorically states that the same is on principal to principal basis. The service tax liability under BAS cannot be sustained against the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - Service Tax Appeals Nos. 59270/2013 and 53654/2014 - Final Orders Nos. 50601-50602/2018 - Dated:- 12-2-2018 - Hon ble Mr. Justice (Dr.) Satish Chandra, President And Hon ble Mr. B. Ravichandran, Member (T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ings were initiated against the appellant by way of issue of four show cause notices covering the period 10.09.2004 to 31.03.2012. The cases were adjudicated confirming the service tax liability and also imposing penalties under Section 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 3. Ld. Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant has purchased CNG from IGL and they sold the same to the different buyers. A perusal of the agreement will clearly show that the amount, which is sought to be taxed, though termed as commission‟ is in reality only a discount from the price of gas payable by the appellant to the IGL. Such discounts on a sale transactions cannot be subjected to any service tax. The arrangement is such that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard both the sides and examined the case records. 6. We have also examined the terms of the agreement between the IGL and the appellant. At the outset, we note that similar set of facts in respect of appellant‟s own case in Mumbai and for IOCL with IGL has been a subject matter of decisions of this Tribunal. The said decisions relied upon by the appellant are relevant to decide the present case also. In the case of IOCL (supra), the Tribunal observed as under:- 7. On careful consideration of the submissions made by both the sides, we find that on identical set of facts and on the basis of the identical agreement, a case was booked against M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. (supra), wherein this Tribunal observed as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that mere mention in the agreement the trade margin as commission on which VAT/ST has been paid would not evidence the fact of rendering service. The contention of the ld. AR that the private parties are paying Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Service on the same activity, therefore, the appellants are required to pay Service Tax is not acceptable as in the case of private parties, the invoices on the customers were raised by M/s. MGL directly and the private parties are receiving commission and there is no transaction on principal to principal basis. 8. We further find that as per the agreement, relationship between the parties had been defined in Clause 14.2 of the agreement, which is reproduced as under:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
