incentive amount is not flowing from the distributor rather than from the actual manufacturer, and there is no agreement as such with the distributor. As reyards the aforesaid observations of the MAAR, the Appellant have contended that as per the provisions of Section 15(3) of CGST Act, 2017, the appellant can consider the incentive received as trade discount as conditions mentioned in the aforesaid section is fulfilled. The appellant has not come up with any additional facts rather than saying plainly that the incentive received by them are in the form of trade discount. MAAR has rightly observed that no sale transaction of goods has taken place between the appellant and hence incentives will not be covered under the provisions of Section 15(3) of CGST Act, 2017. For the incentives to qualify as trade discount, an agreement between seller and purchasing party is a pre-requisite, the same is missing between the distributor and the appellant. Thus, the incentive received from the manufacturer is separate from the transaction undertaken by the appellant with the distributors. Further, the appellant has relied upon decision oftribunal inSharyu Motors vs. Commissioner of Service Tax (2016(43) S.T.R. 158 (Tri.Mumbai)],andhavecontendedthattheincentivesarea formof tradediscount. However. the factsof the case are different fromthe caselaw cited.Insaid case,the incentive wasdircctly flowing fromseller (the manufacturerof car) to purchaser (the car dealers), which is notthecase at present. Thus, theincentives received fromIIULis not a trade discount. Thesecondquestionraisedbytheappellantisthatif incentivesreceivedbythemarenot considered astrade discounts, then whether it is consideration of any supply. To which MAAR held thatin the absenceof anysupplyof goods between IIUL and the appellant, IlUL is paying consideration tothe appellant for receiving marketing services which could augment the sales 10.1While of intelgoing products.through the agreement between appellant and IIUL, it is evident that it isoutcome basedcontract, payment of incentives is wholly dependent on outcomes being achieved by the appellant interms of quantifiable data of' purchase/ sale of intel products.Insuch outcome basedcontracts the responsibility to achieve the desired outcome is casted upon the supplier of servicesundersaidcontract.Thespecifications andproceduresthatrequiretoachievethe desiredoutcome are to be devised by the contractor. It is evident from the contract /agreement betweenappellant andIIUL that the amount receivedunder scheme is to enhancesupply, to embossIntelbrandinIndiaandtokeepcustomerbaseintactinINDIAandthusimplied services areperformed by appellant as per the outcome based contract. 10.2 Theabove observation is fortified with the termsof the agreement dated 27th December, 2020, wherein Para4 of agreement determines the duties of "Component Supplier" i.e. the appellant in thepresentcase. The relevant partof the agreement has been produced as under, highlighting thescope of the duties:
