Home Case Index All Cases Service Tax Service Tax + AT Service Tax - 2021 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 293 - CESTAT MUMBAILevy of penalty - Non-discharge of tax liability - business auxiliary service - the appellant, an authorized dealer and service centre for motor vehicles, had provided space for insurance companies to solicit customers of insurance contracts on the vehicles sold by them - HELD THAT:- The decision in M/S PAGARIYA AUTO CENTER VERSUS CCE, AURANGABAD [2014 (2) TMI 98 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)], followed in the several decisions of the Tribunal, has clearly determined, in general, the taxability of receipts from insurance companies operating at the premises of motor vehicle dealers. The exclusion enunciated in the decision of the Larger Bench is the latitude afforded should an assessee be able to establish that only ‘table space’ was provided. On a perusal of the impugned order, as well as that of the original authority, and the grounds of appeal, we find no justification proffered for in support of the claim of the appellant that the exclusion applies to them. Therefore, taxability of the receipts in the hands of the appellant is no longer in dispute. In the light of section 73(4) of Finance Act, 1994, which is the sole ground for denying recourse to section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, it is clear that the appellant herein has discharged tax liability in the manner contemplated by section 73(3) of Finance Act, 1994, upon intimation by the jurisdictional central excise officers. Consequently, in accordance with Explanation 2 therein, the assessee is not liable to any penalty under Finance Act, 1944. The appeal is, therefore, allowed to the limited extent of setting aside the penalties imposed by the original authority and upheld in the impugned order. Appeal allowed in part.
|