Commissioner Of Service Tax, Mumbai Ii vs Group M. Media (I) P. Ltd
- CitationAppeal No. ST/86295/13
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The amount a service provider accounts for as discount or volume discount, where the adjudicating authority has found it to be such, is not liable to service tax; this follows from the Tribunal's earlier final order in the same assessee's own case, decided on identical facts, which the Tribunal declines to depart from.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
(Arising out Order-in-Original No. 18/ST/HB/12-13 dated 06.12.2012 passed by the Commissioner of service tax, Mumbai II)
For approval and signature: Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy Seen of the Order?
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental Yes authorities?
Commissioner of Service tax, Mumbai II Appellant
Vs.
Group M. Media (I) P. Ltd. Respondent
Appearance:
Shri K.S. Mishra Addl.Comm (AR) for the appellant Shri Prasad Paranjape, Advocate for the respondent
CORAM:
Honble Mr. M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) Honble Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical)
Date of hearing : 02/07/2015 Date of decision : 02/07/2015
O R D E R No:..
Per: M.V. Ravindran:
This appeal is filed by the revenue against Order-in-Original No. 18/ST/HB/12-13 dated 06.12.2012.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. On perusal of records, it transpires that the revenue is aggrieved by the order in original passed by the adjudicating authority for dropping the demands raised against the respondent by show cause notice dated 2nd April 2009. The allegation in the show cause notice was that the respondent assessee is required to discharge service tax liability on an amount received as discount and volume discounts. The adjudicating authority after following the due process of law came to a conclusion that the amounts which are accounted as discounts are not liable to service tax. The revenue in appeal mainly raises the contention that the amount accounted as discount is nothing but consideration received for the services rendered.
4. We find that the issue is no more res Integra. In the appellants own case, this bench vide final order dated 27/8/2014, allowed the appeals relying upon a decision in identical set of facts. This order is reported at 2014 TIOL 2125 CESTAT MU M. On perusal of the said order, we find that the issue involved was identical and in respect of the very same respondent assessee. We also note that revenue was also in appeal in the citation as above. As the issue is decided by the bench in the respondent assessees own case, we do not find any reason to deviate from such a view already taken.
5. Accordingly, we reject the appeal of the revenue and hold that the impugned order is correct, legal and does not suffer from any infirmity.
(Operative part pronounced in Court)
(P.S. Pruthi) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
//SR
3
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