COMMISSIONER OF SERVICE TAX Vs. RELIANCE COMMUNICATION LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the Revenue against the Order -in -Appeal No. AT(181)Bel/2007 dated 29.3.2007.

(2.) THE relevant facts that arise for consideration are that the respondents were engaged in providing services under the category Telephone Services, Online Information and Database Access and Retrieval Services, Leased Circuit Service etc. They were registered as a Service Tax assessee and were paying service tax on the taxable value of services provided by them. The respondents filed the refund claim on 23.9.2005 on the ground that they had paid the service tax on Maximum Retail Price (MRP) of the Recharge Coupon Vouchers (RCVs) for their prepaid services but the recharge vouchers had actually been sold to the distributors at a discounted price from the MRP and some recharge vouchers had also been distributed free of cost to distributors/operators. The claim was filed on the ground that the money value of the discount given on the recharge vouchers and that distributed free had not been received by the respondent and hence, service tax is not payable on these as per Explanation (2) of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 1994 and Rule 6 of Service Tax Rules, 1994. The said refund claim was rejected on the ground that the claim was partially time barred under the provisions of Section 11B and also on the ground that the invoices submitted in support of the claim were of Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. and not of the respondents i.e. Reliance Communications Ltd. (previously Reliance Infocomm Ltd.) and the respondents had not issued any invoices as service provider. It was held that the respondents did not submit any document, evidencing "sale" of the vouchers and finally the documents furnished alongwith the claim did not indicate the service tax separately. On an appeal against such rejection of the refund claim, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) held in favour of the respondents. To arrive at such a conclusion, the Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the Reliance Communications Infrastructure Ltd. (RCIL) is an agent and were marketing services provided by Reliance Communications Ltd. (RCL). Hence, the invoices issued by RCIL were on behalf of the RCL. He also held that the invoices annexed to the appeal show the name of respondent in one corner and name and address of RCIL in the other corner, and it also bears service tax registration number of service provider M/s RCL. It was held by the Commissioner (Appeals) that though the amount of service tax payable is not separately indicated in the aforesaid invoices, on scrutiny of the invoices it is seen that the indication of separately mention the value of the services and service tax come into effect from 10.9.2004.

(3.) AFTER coming to such a conclusion, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has set aside the impugned order -in -original and allowed the appeal filed by the RCL.