TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 408X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 'Sahara' brand @ 5% of the annual turnover. - though SITV is separately registered with the Service Tax Department, but it is not a separate legal entity rather it is a division of the appellant who has discharged the service tax liability on behalf of the appellant and this does not tantamount to discharging the service tax liability of another company because the appellant and SITV form part of the same company and it is only a division of the appellant. The division of a company is not a separate company and the payment of service tax by the division would be deemed to be the payment by the company. The demand of ₹ 16,25,553/- is on account of miscellaneous income for which the appellant has not charged any royalty - Hel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ahara India TV Network, Mumbai (SITV, for short) which is separately registered under service Tax and are located in Mumbai. M/S. Aamby Valley Ltd. (AVL, for short) was a unit of the appellant but has demerged from the appellant in the year 2008 as per the scheme of arrangement. As per the scheme of arrangement, AVL was required to pay royalty for use of 'Sahara' brand @5% of annual turnover. The 'annual turnover' is defined in para 2.4 in scheme of arrangement as follows: - 24 Annual Turnover' shall mean al/ the revenue of the resulting company excluding the taxes and levies by whatever names called In pursuance of the same, the appellants have raised two invoices on AVL dt 31/03/2008 and 31/03/2009, which have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant, Commissioner vide the impugned order dt. 09/01/2014 confirmed the demand. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the present appeal. 3. Heard both sides and perused records. Learned consultant Shri S S. Gupta appearing for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly considering the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the decisions of the Tribunal on an identical issue. He further submitted that the service tax liability of Rs.l already paid by the division of the appellant should be accepted towards discharge of the liability confirmed under the impugned order, He further submitted that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een charged by the appellant. In reply to this allegation, the appellant submitted that miscellaneous income accounted during 2007-08 and 2008-09 mainly comprised of sundry balance written back, liquidated damages, fines and penalty charges, foreign exchange difference, sale of scrap, transfer and cancellation fees etc. and hence the same was not considered. Learned consultant further submitted that the Commissioner has given no finding against the said submission given in reply to the show-cause notice. He further submitted that no royalty has been paid on the miscellaneous income and the appellant has also not raised any invoice of royalty on this amount. But the Commissioner has upheld the demand on this amount on the ground that royalty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by SITV. Further we find that though SITV is separately registered with the Service Tax Department, but it is not a separate legal entity rather it is a division of the appellant who has discharged the service tax liability on behalf of the appellant and this does not tantamount to discharging the service tax liability of another company because the appellant and SITV form part of the same company and it is only a division of the appellant. Further we find that the decisions relied upon by the appellant have also considered this aspect and held that division of a company is not a separate company and the payment of service tax by the division would be deemed to be the payment by the company. In the case of Mahindra Logistics Ltd., the Tribu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
