SIGN IN SUBSCRIBE

News Update

Delhi HC orders DGCA to deregister GO First’s aircraftIndia successfully tests SMART anti-submarine missile-assisted torpedo systemKiller heatwave kills hundreds of thousands of fish in Southern VietnamHong Kong struck by close to 1000 lightningColumbia Univ campus turns into ‘American Gaza’ - Pro-Palestinian students & counter-protesters clashViksit Bharat @2047: Taxes form the BedrockGST - April month collections go past Rs 2 lakh crore threshold - peak to Rs 2.1 lakh croreCX - Alleged clandestine removal - Not replying to SCN on the ground that letter is not furnished by department is only a ruse as reliance is not placed on the same by the respondent authority for adjudicating the SCNs: SCGST - Proper officer observes that the reply filed is not satisfactory and since the assessee has nothing more to say, demand is confirmed - Officer has not applied his mind - Matter remitted: HCGST - Petitioner had no opportunity to even object to the retrospective cancellation of registration - Petitioner does not seek to continue his business and has sought cancellation of registration - Order modified accordingly: HCGST - Seizing the outward movement of funds from petitioner's bank account - Life of an order of provisional attachment u/s 83(2) is only one year - HDFC Bank, henceforth, cannot restrain operation of bank account: HCTax - on Death and ContemplationDelhi, Noida schools receive bomb threats; Children sent back homeI-T- Writ court is not required to interfere with assessment order, where assessee also has available option of statutory appeal: HCED seizes Rs 90 Cr stored in crypto in Gaming App scamI-T-Transfer of assessment is sustained, where assessee does not reply to any notice issued in this regard & where valid reasons exist for transferring assessment: HCHM appeals Naxalism will be erased in 2 yrs if Modi voted back to powerAmerica softens offence related to use of marijuanaI-T - Rule 11UA does not mentions pre-condition of approval of balance sheet by Annual General Meeting: ITATAfter US & UK India comes third in terms of 79 mn cyber attacks in 2023: StudyCBIC revises tariff value of gold, silver & edible oils
 
ST - BSS - appellant managing distillery & country liquor by undertaking manufacturing as well as sale - no evidence to show that appellant had received any amount for any service in relation to manufacture & distribution: CESTAT

By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, JUNE 18, 2014: THE appellants entered into an agreement with M/s. The Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. for managing the business of distillery division and country liquor division.

The CCE, Kolhapur issued SCNs demanding service tax on the ground that the appellants provided "Business Support Service" to M/s. The Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd.

The adjudicating authority confirmed the demands of Rs.4,39,66,593/- and Rs.85,40,423/- respectively along with interest & penalties.

The appellant is, therefore, before the CESTAT.

It is submitted that for the same agreement, the Revenue directed M/s. The Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. vide letter dated 23rd August 2006 to pay service tax under the category of "Franchise service" and M/s. The Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. is regularly paying service tax as per the directions of the Revenue.

The appellant also submits that as per the terms and conditions of the agreement with M/s. The Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. the appellants are to pay Rs.30 lakhs per annum for use of plant and machinery of the distillery units; that the appellants are not receiving any amount from M/s. The Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. Inasmuch as since the appellants have undertaken the activity of manufacture and distribution of the products manufactured in the distillery division, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellants have provided any 'Business Support service' to M/s. The Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. Suffice to say, the appellants contended that the demand is not sustainable.

The Revenue representative reiterated the findings of the adjudicating authority.

The Bench, after extracting the definition of 'Support services of business or commerce' appearing in s.65(104c) and noting the contents of the agreement observed -

++ The appellants had actually undertaken to manage the business the distillery unit of M/s. Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. and also undertaken the manufacturing activity as well as the sale of products. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellants had received any amount from M/s. Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. for providing any service in relation to the business or commerce or manufacture and distribution of products.

++ Further we find that on the same agreement, almost for the same period, the Revenue directed M/s. Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. to pay service tax under the category of franchise service vide letter dated 23rd August 2006 and M/s. Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. are paying service tax under the category of franchise service regularly and this fact is not in dispute.

Holding that the appellants had not provided any service which can be termed as 'business support service' as provided under Section 65 (104c) of the Finance Act, 1994, the orders passed by the CCE, Kolhapur were set aside and the appeals were allowed.

In passing: A more than five crores illusory demand thus goes to the bin.

(See 2014-TIOL-1053-CESTAT-MUM)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

TIOL Tube Latest

TIOL Tube
Shri N K Singh, recipient of TIOL FISCAL HERITAGE AWARD 2023, delivering his acceptance speech at Fiscal Awards event held on April 6, 2024 at Taj Mahal Hotel, New Delhi.

TOP NEWS

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

VISION 360



Shri Ram Nath Kovind, Hon'ble 14th President of India, addressing the gathering at TIOL Special Awards event.

TII LATEST

TIOLCORPLAWS LATEST