9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vehicles under warranty, the Appellant independently also undertook servicing of vehicles which were not under warranty and were raising labour charge bills to the customers who owned such vehicles. The charges for spare parts used in vehicles outside warranty were recovered separately by M/s Pandit from the vehicle owners with no concern with M/s Tata Motors. 2. The department issued show cause notice alleging that the activity of servicing/ repairing of vehicles undertaken by the Appellant for customers fall under the category of Authorised Service Stationwhich is liable for service tax. Accordingly, the demand cum show cause notice of service tax was issued which was culminated into adjudication order. Therefore, the appellants are before us. 3. Shri J.C. Patel, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that M/s Pandit Automotive were appointed M/s Tatas authorized dealer and service center. He takes us through the agreement between M/s Tata and Pandit Automotive to contend that the same has got no relation with the Appellants activity. That it is only by internal agreement between the Appellant and M/s Pandit Automotive the Appellant carried out servicing of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enter into agreement with M/s Pandit Automotive. There is no prior consent of M/s Tata to Appellant for servicing/ repair of vehicles of M/s Pandit Automotive. Thus there is no question of Appellant being authorizes service centre of M/s Tata. That in letter dt. 20.10.2010 of M/s Tata to Service Tax department it is clearly mentioned that their agreement was with M/s Pandit only and that M/s Pandit had private agreement with Appellant. He submits that if M/s Tata has not objected to such agreement it does not mean that there is waiver from condition of agreement between M/s Pandit Automotive and M/s Tata which states that M/s Pandit shall not without prior written consent of Tata appoint any jobbers. The same cannot make the Appellant to be authorized service center of Tata and M/s Pandit continues to remain authorized service center. The liability is on authorized service station and not Appellant. He further submitted that the corporate veil has been sought to be lifted to show that M/s Pandit Automotive and Appellant are one and the same. However such contention was not raised in SCN and the Notice was issued on ground that Appellant was agent by conduct of M/s Tata. He also su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by both sides and perused the records. 6. We find that the issue involved is whether in the given facts the Appellant can be taxed under the category of Authorised Service station. The contention of the revenue is that from the facts of the case and letter dt. 20.10.2010 it is implied that the Appellant is liable to be taxed under the said category. We have perused the records and written submission of both the parties. We find from the agreement between M/s Tata Motors and M/s Pandit Automotive that M/s Pandit Automotive were appointed as Tatas authorized Dealer and Service Center with no involvement of Appellant. Under the terms M/s Pandit Automotive were to sell and service the vehicles of M/s Tata Motors on principal to principal basis. M/s Pandit were required to give cash security/ bank guarantee for due fulfillment of terms of the agreement and to maintain organization for efficient sales and service of the vehicles including maintaining of showrooms, workshop and service center. They could not appoint any sub dealer, stockist, jobber, agents or representatives and their directors were responsible for any dues to M/s Tata Motors. It also provided for other terms and co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat they were concerned only with the quality of services rendered by the Authorised Service Station which happened to be of M/s Pandit Automotive and therefore were not concerned as to whose employees were undertaking the job. In case of vehicles under warranty it was M/s Pandit Automotive who raised invoices upon M/s Tata and also discharged the service tax liability being Authorised Service Dealer/ Centre. In case of vehicles outside warranty we find that M/s Tata were not concerned with the type of services as they were not liable to such acts of Appellant. M/s Pandit Automotive raised invoice towards spare parts so consumed and the Appellant raised direct bill to the vehicle owners and on such bills there is no inscription that the job has been carried out as authorized representative or station of M/s Tata. It is also fact emanating from the records that the Appellant vide letter dt. 31.10.2001 had informed that they are undertaking servicing and repairing work of M/s Pandit Autmotive during warranty period and outside warranty period the vehicles are independently serviced. They also informed that M/s Pandit Automotive is authorized dealer and discharging service tax and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
