TMI Blog2021 (9) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e other two decisions, observing that discounts offered by car manufacturers to their dealers for onward transmission to corporate customers is not liable to tax as promotion or marketing or sale of goods produced or belonging to clients within the enumeration of business auxiliary service in section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994. - the demand of ₹ 3,70,994/-, along with interest, and penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 fails to survive. Commission from banks and financial companies and on payments received for insurance referral - penalty - HELD THAT:- Appellant has admitted and discharged liability arising on receipt of commission from financial institutions and insurance companies - reliance placed in the dec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and for tax of ₹3,70,994/- on the first of the issues and to the entirety of penalties imposed. 2. The appellant is an authorized dealer of M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt Ltd and, in accordance with their agreements, is allowed to offer discounts on sale of vehicles to their corporate customers to be reimbursed to them and had facilitated banks and financial companies, as well as insurance companies, to service loan and insurance requirements of customers from their premises. The demands were confirmed by the original authority under section 73 of Finance Act, 1994, along with interest thereon under section 75 of Finance Act, 1994, while imposing penalty of like amount under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994. On appeal, the demand, interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h dropped the demands arising therefrom had been accepted by Revenue. It was contended by him that the appellant had failed to discharge their tax liability at the appointed intervals on commission earned by them and, therefore, the imposition of penalties was valid. 6. From the decisions cited by Learned Chartered Accountant, we find that the dispute pertaining to discount offered to corporate customers has attained finality. In this connection, the decision of the Tribunal in re Toyota Lakozy Auto Pvt Ltd, which has referred to the other two decisions, observing that 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ESTAT-MUM = 2014 (35) S.T.R. 625 (Tri.)], Tradex Polymers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad [2014 (34) S.T.R. 416 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] and Garrisson Polysacks Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Vadodara [2015 (39) S.T.R. 487 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]. In re Jaybharat Automobiles Limited, the Tribunal held that 6.5 On the appeal by Revenue on the issue of incentives received by the appellant from the car dealer, we find 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand of ₹ 3,70,994/-, along with interest, and penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 fails to survive. 8. Appellant has admitted and discharged liability arising on receipt of commission from financial institutions and insurance companies. We take note that in the decision of the Tribunal in re Addis Marketing, the exposition of the Tribunal in Gemini Mobiles Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Lucknow [2015- TIOL-15670-CESTAT-ALL] which examined several aspects thus 5. The conflicts came up for consideration before a Larger Bench in Pagariya Auto Center v. C.C.E., Aurangabad and the legal position was clarified by the order dated 12-9-2013 reported in 2014 (33) S.T.R. 506 (Tri.-LB) = 2014-TIO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nancial institutions, there was a bona fide doubt as to whether appellants herein had provided BAS during the relevant period in issue. Therefore non-filing of returns and non-remittance of tax for rendition of BAS could not be characterised as arising with a view to suppression of material facts or failure to remit tax with an intent to evade the same, inviting application of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. 7. The period in issue in the present appeals is July, 2003 to November, 2005. Show cause notice was issued on 31-1- 2006. Only part of the period is therefore within the normal period of limitation. In the light of the fact that there were conflicting decisions of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
