Cce, Allahabad vs M/S Capital T.V. Service Centre

(Arising out Order-in-Original No. 9-ST/ALLD/2009 dated 18.2.2009 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Allahabad)

For Approval & Signature :

Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

1. Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?

CCE, Allahabad Appellant

Vs.

M/s Capital T.V. Service Centre Respondent

Appearance:

Shri R.K. Gupta, D.R. - for the Appellant

Shri S.S. Dabas, Advocate - for the Respondent

Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)

F. Order No.52546/2015

Per R.K. Singh:

Appeal is filed by Revenue against order-in-appeal dated 18.2.2009 which set aside the order-in-original dated 31.3.2008 in terms of which service tax demand of Rs.12,49,640/- was confirmed along with interest and penalties on the ground that the respondent had not paid service tax on the commission received from BSNL for rendering service to the latter under Business Auxiliary Service. The commission was received for marketing and distribution of BSNL telecom service in addition to sale of BSNL product and service. The Commissioner (Appeals) held that the transaction involved purchase and sales of SIM cards and commission was nothing but the profit in these transactions and thereby dropped the impugned demand.

2. As pointed out by the respondent the issue has been decided in their favour by CESTAT Final Order No.ST/A/50337-50344/2014-CU(DB) dated 29.1.2014 in which the respondent was also one of the appellants. This impugned demand is on the same ground for a different period. In view of the fact that demand for different period on the very same issue has been set aside in respect of the respondent himself vide aforesaid order of CESTAT, following the precedent, we dismiss the appeal. Cross-objections are also disposed of.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R.K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

RM