Case Law Details
Lovely Traders Vs CCE & ST (CESTAT Chandigarh)
Appellant submits that the appellant is not liable to pay service tax on the commission received by them. He further submits that BSNL has discharged service tax liability on full value equal to MRP (maximum retail price) which was inclusive of the appellant’s discount/ commission and hence they are not liable to pay service tax. He further submits that they have produced certificate on record which is issued by BSNL wherein they have certified that maximum retail price of prepaid mobile connections/recharge coupons on which service tax has been discharged during the period 1.7.2003 to March, 2007 includes commission/discount paid to M/s.Lovely Traders i.e. the appellant, who were their authorised distributor/franchisee. Ld. Counsel further submits that the department did not enquire from BSNL regarding payment of service tax on the commission paid to the appellant. He further submits that charging of tax twice on the commission received by the appellant would tantamount to double taxation which is not permitted in law.
After carefully considering the submissions of both the parties and perusal of record and several decisions relied upon by both sides, we are of the considered view that the issue is no more resintera in view of the judgement in the case of Goyal Automobiles (supra) which was not challenged by the Revenue before the appellate authority.
CESTAT find that BSNL has already deposited service tax on commission received by the appellant, which is clear from the certificate produced by them on record. Therefore, by following the ratio of said decision, we allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHANDIGARH ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
