TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 605X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... les service for the products used in the territory including those which have not been sold by them - When the agreement mentions the territory to include all these places, the appellant s contention that they were not authorized to conduct service stations in Theni, Dindigul and Karaikudi and therefore the demand of service tax not sustainable is untenable and unacceptable. Penalty u/s 76 not tenable - penalty u/s 78 and demand of tax with interest upheld - appeal allowed in part. - ST/235/2009 - Final Order No. 43024/2017 - Dated:- 21-11-2017 - Ms. Sulekha Beevi, Member ( Judicial ) And Shri Madhu Mohan Damodhar, Member ( Technical ) Ms. Minchu Mariam Punnoose, Advocate for the appellant Shri K. Veerabhadra Reddy, JC ( A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ounds of appeal. She submitted that the appellants were authorized or in other words, granted permission by the manufacturer viz., MML for conduct of authorized service stations only at Madurai. That during the disputed period, the appellants were not authorized by the manufacturer for conduct of service stations at Dindigul, Theni and Karaikudi and therefore the branches in these places cannot be considered as authorized service stations. She submitted that authorization for the service station must be made by the manufacturer of automobiles to the dealers in a specific manner, mentioning the names of the place where the service station is to be located. Such permission pertains to servicing, repairing, re-conditioning etc., of the product ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted documents with an intention to mislead the authorities below. That, therefore the demand raised invoking the extended period alleging wilful suppression of facts as well as the confirmation of demand thereon is legal and proper. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The main contention put forward by the appellant before the authorities below as well as before us is that the manufacturer viz., MML has not given any permission for conduct of authorized service stations in the places Dindigul, Theni and Karaikudi and therefore the amounts collected toward labour charges in these branches cannot be subject to levy of service tax under the category of Authorized Service Station services. We have perused the impugned order carefully as well as the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant and the copy that has been obtained by the department from the manufacturer at Mumbai. No other points were argued. 6. Viewed in this light, we find that the confirmation of demand, interest thereon requires no interference. However, coming to the imposition of penalty, we find that the authorities below have imposed both penalties under Section 76 as well as 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, which in our view is unwarranted and unjustified. We therefore set aside the penalty imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994, without disturbing the demand of service tax, interest thereon and equal penalty imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. 7. The appeal is disposed in the above terms with consequential relief, if a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
