9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 541X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ocure vehicles on payment of cost and it is claimed that the earnings of the dealer arise from the difference between the discounted price at which vehicles are offered by the manufacturer and the price at which the appellant sells to customers. 2. Separate appeals have been preferred against two orders-in-original pertaining to the period from July 2004 to March 2007 and from April 2007 to March 2011. The demands confirmed in the two appeals are Rs. 1,58,69,430/- and Rs. 1,57,12,236/-; the impugned order holds appellant liable to tax on commission earned on sale of cars, on facilitation charges collected from customers for registration of vehicles and commission foregone on loans marketed by appellant to customers. It is the contention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that the relationship between the appellant and the dealer is on a principal to principal basis. Only because some incentives/discounts are received by the appellant under various schemes of the manufacturer cannot lead to the conclusion that the incentive is received for promotion and marketing of goods. It is not material under what head the incentives are shown in the Ledgers, what is relevant is the nature of the transaction which is of sale. All manufacturers provide discount schemes to dealers. Such transactions cannot fall under the service category of Business Auxiliary Service when it is a normal market practice to offer discounts/institutions to the dealers. The issue is settled in the case of Sai Service Station (supra). Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [Final order no. A/85827 - 85828/16/STB dated 3rd February 2016], held that '7. In our considered view helping the purchaser with registration with the RTO, cannot be any considered by Business Auxiliary Service, in view of the foregoing, we hold the Service Tax demand of the amount retained by the appellant in respect of RTO registration fees is not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside. This Bench in the case of Wonder Cars Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I - 2016-TIOL-190-CESTAT-MUM has held that amount collected as extra charges for RTO registration is not covered under "support services of business and commerce". 8. In view of the foregoing, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mumbai [2015-TIOL-1570-CESTAT-MUM] to contest the claim of appellant that the subvented component is not received as consideration by appellant. Further reliance was placed on Joshi Auto Zone Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2016 (42) STR 739 (Tri-Del)] and on HBL Global Pvt Ltd v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax [ITA No. 386/Mum/10]. Learned Chartered Accountant has sought to distinguish the factual position in these cases from those of the appellant. 8. We have perused the decisions cited by both sides. One of the essential requirements in taxing of services is the existence of 'service-provider' and 'recipient of service' with the latter making over the agreed upon consideration to the former. Appellant, admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
