Cce, Indore vs M/S Ranbir Singh
- CitationAppeal No. ST/370/2009-CU(DB)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The question on which the decision rests is whether the respondent's promotion and marketing services rendered to M/s Amway Enterprises fall within Business Auxiliary Service, so as to attract service tax notwithstanding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s finding that the respondent was an individual and not a commercial concern. Where the facts of the case are materially similar to those of an earlier decision of the Tribunal, the earlier decision's ratio governs, and the activity of promotion and marketing of goods for a principal in return for commission is liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service, the service recipient being treated as the client.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. IND-I/22/2009 dated 5.2.2009 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Indore]
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, Indore Appellant
Vs.
M/s Ranbir Singh Respondent
Appearance:
Shri B.B. Sharma, D.R. - for the Appellant
None - for the Respondent
Coram : Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President
Honble Mr. R.K. Singh, Member (Technical)
F. Order No. 51630/2015
Per R.K. Singh :
Revenue has filed this appeal against order-in-appeal dated 5.2.2009 which set aside the order-in-original dated 25.9.2008. Vide the said order-in-original the service tax demand of Rs.79,344/- for the period 1.7.2003 to 31.3.2005 was confirmed along with interest and penalties on the ground that the respondent had provided Business Auxiliary Service to M/s Amway Enterprises. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the said order-in-original on the ground that the respondent was an individual and not a commercial concern and M/s Amway Enterprises cannot be treated to be client of the respondent.
2. Revenue has contended that :
(i) The Commissioner (Appeals) has wrongly treated the respondent as an individual,
(ii) M/s Ranbir Singh is a commercial concern as it was acting in commercial capacity,
(iii) Service rendered to M/s Amway Enterprises made M/s Amway as its client.
(iv) The respondent was providing service in the form of promotion and marketing of the goods to M/s Amway Enterprises and receiving commission for that purpose and therefore was squarely covered in the category of Business Auxiliary Service provider.
(v) The case is covered by the judgement in the case of Shri Surendra Singh Rathore & Others Vs. CCE, Jaipur-I 2013 (3) ECS (224) (Tri.-Del.).
3. We have considered the facts of the case and submissions of D.R. We find that as stated by the ld. D.R. the facts of this case are similar to the facts of the case of Shri Surendra Singh Rathore & Others (supra). In that case, such service rendered was held liable to service tax under Business Auxiliary Service. Following the ratio laid down in the case of Shri Surendra Singh Rathore & Others (supra), we allow Revenues appeal, and set aside the impugned order as a consequence of which the order-in-original dated 25.9.2008 springs back to life.
(Justice G. Raghuram)
President
(R.K. Singh)
Member (Technical)
RM
1
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free