Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (12) TMI 12

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. on the basis of yearly performance of sale grants the discount to the dealer, this discount is nothing but a discount in the sale value of the vehicle sold throughout the year therefore, these sales discount in the course of transaction of sale and purchase of the vehicles hence, the same cannot be considered as service for levy of service tax. From the judgment in M/S. ROHAN MOTORS LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, DEHRADUN [ 2020 (12) TMI 1014 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] which has considered other decisions also, it was categorically held in the identical situation, the amount received as discount/incentive from the vehicle manufacturer by the appellant being the dealer is not liable to service tax. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... arefully considered the submissions made by both the sides and perused the records. We find that the fact is not under dispute that the appellant being a dealer purchase the vehicles from M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and subsequently sell the same to various customers. The transaction between M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and the dealer and subsequently sale transaction between the dealer and the customs are purely on principal to principal basis. The vehicle manufacturer M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. on the basis of yearly performance of sale grants the discount to the dealer, this discount is nothing but a discount in the sale value of the vehicle sold throughout the year therefore, these sales discount in the course of transaction of sa .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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: As per the agreement with MUL, the appellant has received various incentives/discounts/bonus etc. from MUL from time to time. The income received under these heads was accounted by the appellant in their books of account as miscellaneous income . During the course of audit of the books of account of the appellant, the Department noticed such Misc. income and took the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 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 the cars from MUL on principal to principal basis and subsequently, reselling the same. 5. Revenue has ordered for payment of Service Tax under various receipts recorded under miscellaneous income. These include loading/unloading charges, Pollution Checkup charges, penalty-cum processing charges etc. It is obvious that these amounts have been received not towards .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r 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 of CCE, Mumbai-I v. Sai Service Station is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and hold that no service tax can be demanded on the incentive which was in form of trade discounts, extended to the party in terms of a declared policy for achieving sales target. Accordingly, I find that the demand of service tax raised on this count is unsus .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates