9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1536X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wherein service tax demand to the extent of Rs. 1,25,24,819/- has been confirmed against the appellant alongwith interest as well as penalty of equal amount under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The applicant is engaged as a dealer of M/s Hyundai Motors India Ltd. They also undertake servicing and repair of these vehicles. In the impugned order service tax demand has been made in the category of business auxiliary services on the following amounts received by the appellant :- (i) incentive/commission received from M/s Hyundai Motors for whom the appellant is acting as a dealer ; (ii) commission on the sale of lubricants ; (iii) amount recovered towards extended warrantee and handling charges while functioning as au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay be granted from recovery of the service tax demanded in the impugned order. 5. The learned DR S/Shri Govind Dixit and Ranjan Khanna for the Revenue strongly opposed the grant of stay with complete waiver of demand. He relied on the Larger Bench decision in the case of Pagariya Auto Centre vs. CCE, Auragabad reported in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 506 (Tri. - LB) and submitted that as held by the Larger Bench of the Tribunal, the classification of the taxable business auxiliary service will have to be decided on the basis of the relevant transactional documents. He further submitted that in terms of the various clauses of the agreement entered into by the appellant with M/s Hyundai Motors, it is evident that they have undertaken promotion of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nship of agent and principal with the appellant acting as agent of M/s Hyundai Motors. A perusal of the agreement entered into by the appellant with M/s Hyundai Motors, reveals that it has been made on principal to principal basis. The sale concluded by the appellant is not on behalf of M/s Hyundai Motors. The consideration received which is described as incentive/commission, is also paid as a trade discount in the price of the cars. It is also to be noted that the appellant purchase the car from M/s Hyundai Motors (trade discount is given in this transaction) and subsequently undertakes re-sale the same. Several arguments have been advanced by both the sides which need to be gone into in detail. This would be possible only at the time of f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
