TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1430X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not received any separate amount from the manufacturer / customer for the same and the cost is incurred out of their profit margin earned on trading of the vehicles. As the value of the same is already included in the value of vehicles sold, no service tax is leviable on the cost of the PDI Charges - demand set aside. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - APPEAL Nos. ST/89432,89406/2014 - A/86744-86745/2018 - Dated:- 8-6-2018 - Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Ms. Puloma Dalal, C.A., for appellant Shri Dilip Shinde, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for respondent Per: Ramesh Nair The present appeals have been filed against Order-In- Appeal dated 09.06.2014 passed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Raipur Vs. Ralas Motors 2016 TIOL 46 CESTAT- Delhi. 4. As regards PDI charges she submits that on purchasing vehicles from manufacturer-HMIL, the vehicles are dispatched by the manufacturer to the appellant-dealer. An authorized dealer is required to perform Pre-delivery Inspection of every new Hyundai product before delivering it to the customer as per HMIL s instructions. It is carried out in its capacity as a dealer viz. principal who makes his own sale, though under instructions from the manufacturer-HMIL as ultimate responsibility vests in the manufacturer vis- -vis the consumer. There is no consideration provided by HMIL for carrying out the said activity as a dealer of HMIL vehicles nor does the appellant receives any considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat the appellant has not received any separate amount from the manufacturer / customer for the same and the cost is incurred out of their profit margin earned on trading of the vehicles. As the value of the same is already included in the value of vehicles sold, no service tax is leviable on the cost of the PDI Charges. The tribunal in case of KIRAN MOTORS LTD -2009 (16) S.T.R. 74 (Tri-Ahmd.) and in the case of PILLAI SONS MOTOR CO.-2009 (14) S.T.R. 844 (Tri.-Chennai) has set aside the demands in similar set of facts. In view of our above findings, we hold that the service tax demand and penalty against the Appellant are not sustainable. We therefore set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Pronounced in court on 8.6.2018) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
