Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)
M/S Kunj Lub Marketing Pvt. Ltd vs Cce, Kanpur, Allahabad And Lucknow on 29 January, 2014 cites

Idea Mobile Communication Ltd vs C.C.E.& C.,Cochin on 4 August, 2011

4. Several decisions of this Tribunal, both prior and subsequent to the decision of the Supreme Court in Idea Mobile Communications Ltd. vs. CCE, Cochin reported in 2011 (23) S.T.R. 433 (S.C.) had allowed appeals preferred by identically circumstanced assessees who had been vending pre-paid and recharge coupons for BSNL. Reference may be made to the final order dated 06/11/2012 in Martand Food & Dehydrates Pvt. Ltd. It is to be noticed that in Martand Food & Dehydrates Pvt. Ltd., on primarily analysis, the Tribunal rejected the contention by the appellant therein that there was no liability to remit service tax since BSNL had been assessed and remitted service tax on its output service which was the taxable Tele-communication service and since service tax under that taxable category was discharged by BSNL, the same consideration out of which commission is paid to the appellant M/s Martand Food & Dehydrates Pvt. Ltd. cannot be brought to tax under a different taxable category, as Business Auxiliary Service. In para 26 of the said decision this Tribunal negated this contention and observed that the correct procedure for discharge of service tax liability by the two parties [the appellant and BSNL] is that the distributors should raise bills for commissions due to them alongwith the service tax component and BSNL should take Cenvat credit of the tax paid by distributors for discharging liability; and that such procedure does not result in realization of additional revenue. However, this Tribunal concluded that considering the special nature of the impugned activities and the fact that it can be easily verified that the full taxable value of the service provided by BSNL to customers had been subjected to tax, there is no case or justification to undo the decisions already taken by the Tribunal in this regard.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 66 - M Sharma - Full Document
1