TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tivities as well. The carrying out of such activities by the appellant is for the mutual benefit of the business of the appellant, as well as the business of TML. The position in this regard is fairly settled as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of case of MOPED INDIA LIMITED VERSUS ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF C. EX., NELLORE AND OTHERS [ 1985 (2) TMI 42 - SUPREME COURT] .The amount of incentives and discount support received on such account cannot, therefore, be treated as consideration for any service. The incentives and discount support received by the appellant cannot, therefore, be leviable to service tax. The service tax on the amount received as incentives could not, therefore, have been levied to service tax - Appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the period April, 2013 to June, 2017. 4. Shri Ajay K. Mishra, Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant made the following submissions:- (i) The demand is not sustainable as the amount received is trade receipts being discounts, thus, excluded from the definition of service under the ambit of service tax law; (ii) Transactions between Tata Motors Ltd., and the appellant is on principal to principal basis and not being in the nature of principal-agent; (iii) Activities related to promotion of sales by dealers cannot be termed as rendition of service to principal, as the same are in their own interest; (iv) A dealership of the manufacturer is a relationship between principal to principal, and that any incentive received ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of case of Moped India Ltd. vs. CCE reported at 1986 (23) E.L.T. 8 (SC).The amount of incentives and discount support received on such account cannot, therefore, be treated as consideration for any service. The incentives and discount support received by the appellant cannot, therefore, be leviable to service tax. 8. In this connection, reference needs to be made to the decision of the Tribunal in Rohan Motors Ltd.-2021 (45) G.S.T.L. 315 (Tri.-Del.) (supra), wherein, referring to earlier decision of the Tribunal in respect of same appellant reported as Rohan Motors Ltd. v. Commissioner - 2018 (7) TMI 29-CESTAT New Delhi, which is a case relating to the appellant, but for the period prior to July, 2012. The Tribunal observed as follows: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the appellant towards Registration/Number Plate etc. to facilitate the buyers of vehicles. All the above amounts have been charged under BAS. Certain amount of Service Tax has also been demanded under the category of GTA in respect of freight paid by the appellant towards transport of vehicles from their dealership to the customers premises. 9. The Tribunal placed reliance on an earlier decision of the Tribunal in Toyota Lakozy Auto (P.) Ltd. - 2017 (52) S.T.R. 299 (Tri. - Mumbai) and observed. 4. From a perusal of various case laws relied by the appellant, we note that the discounts/incentives received by the appellant from MUL cannot be made liable for payment of Service Tax under BAS, since the appellant is purchasing th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fied under GTA service. Consequently, we set aside the demand under GTA service. 10. The same view was taken by the Tribunal in CST v. Sai Service Station Ltd. - 2013 (10) TMI 1155-CESTAT Mumbai = 2014 (35) S.T.R. 625 (Tribunal). 11. In regard to the period post July, 2012, reliance has been placed by the Learned Counsel for the appellant on an order dated March 23, 2017 passed by the Joint Commissioner, Central Excise in the matter of M/s. Rohan Motors Ltd. (own matter). The period involved was from October, 2013 to March, 2014 and 2014-15. The Joint Commissioner, after placing reliance upon the decision of the Tribunal in Sai Service Station Ltd. (supra), observed as follows: I also find that the ratio of the aforesaid case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
