Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Tradex Polymers Pvt Ltd vs Service Tax - Ahmedabad on 13 August, 2018
In The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal
West Zonal Bench At Ahmedabad
Appeal No.ST/710/2010-DB
[Arising out of OIA-315/2010/STC/MM/COMMR-A-/AHD dated 29.09.2010 passed by the
Commissioner of Central Excise-AHMEDABAD]
M/s Tradex Polymers Pvt Ltd Appellant
Vs
C.S.T. & S.T., Ahmedabad Respondent
Represented by:
For Appellant: Shri Nirav Shah (Advocate) For Respondent: Shri S.N.Gohil (A.R.) CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Date of Hearing/Decision: 13.08.2018 Final Order No. A / 11744 /2018 Per: Ramesh Nair The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged in providing Taxable Services and registered under the category of Business Auxiliary Service as a distributor and receiving commission from his client. The adjudicating authority confirms the demand of Service Tax and upheld the Service Tax.
2. Shri. Nirav Shah, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that only grievance is that the Cum-Tax benefit was not provided by the lower authority. He submits that against the Business Auxiliary Service they received gross value as a commission which should be treated as inclusive of Service Tax and Cum-Tax benefit should be allowed, as per sub- Section(2) of section 67 of the finance act,1994. He placed reliance on the
2|Page ST/710/2010 -DB judgment of this Tribunal in the case Godfrey Phillips India Ltd Vs. Commissioner of C.Ex., Mumbair-i-2018 (10) G.S.T.L. 467 (Tri. Mumbai), and Commr. Of C. Ex. & CUS., Patna Vs. Advantage Media Consultant-2008 (10) S.T.R. 449 (Tri. Kolkata).
3. Shri. S.N.Gohil, Ld. Superintendent (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order.
4. On careful consideration of the submission made by both the sides, we find that, since, there is clear provision under Sub-Section(2) of Section 67 whatever amount was received as service charges it is to be treated as inclusive of service Tax, hence cum- Tax benefit is available to the appellant. This has been held by this Tribunal in the case of Gofrey Phillips India Ltd. The relevant para-5.6 is reproduced below:
"5.6. The appellant have raised issued of valuation relying on the decision of CCE Vs. Advantage Media Consultant [2009 (14) S.T.R. J49 (S.C) ] we find merit in the said contention and held that Cum-tax benefit needs to be extended to the appellant."
This Tribunal following the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in case of Advantage Media Consultant (Supra) extended the benefit of Cum-tax.
5. Accordingly, we hold that appellant is entitled for the Cum Tax benefit. Hence, the impugned order stands modified and appeal is allowed.
(Dictated and pronounced in the open court) (Raju) (Ramesh Nair) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial) Prachi