9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 15.04.2014 is for the period October 2008 to March 2013; the second show cause notice dated 31.03.2015 is for the period 2013-14; and the third show cause notice dated 09.03.2016 is for the period 2014-15. Out of the demand proposed in the aforesaid three show cause notices, the Commissioner has confirmed the demand of Rs. 14,89,496/- with penalty and interest and has dropped the demand of Rs. 4,09,43,169/-. 2. The appellant is an authorised Maruti Car Agency in Roorkee. It purchases and sells Maruti Cars and spare parts and also carries out work of repair of maruti vehicles. 3. The issue involved in the present appeal is regarding the taxability of the amount received by the appellant from the customers who purchased vehicle for assist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hicles from M/s. SAPL, the party collects an amount (which includes statutory registration fee and some extra charges) from them and transfers the entire amount to these Individuals on the understanding that they would process the registration related formalities with the Regional Transport Office and get the registration issued in the name of their customers. The Individuals get the registration number for the customers of M/s SAPL. During the course of providing these services, they earn some profit out of the extra charges inbuilt in the amount paid to them by M/s. SAPL. From the profit so earned they pay a certain amount to M/s SAPL which is recorded as Income other than sales by the party. This is the income which the department propos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. 22.3 I further find that for period w.e.f. 01.07.12 too this activity is covered within the scope of 'service' as defined under Section 65B(44) of the Act. There is nothing to show that these services were either covered in the negative list given in Section 65D of the Act or were exempted under any exemption notification. 22.6 Accordingly, in the light of the facts of the present case I hold that the consideration received by M/s. SAPL from the third parties was in lieu of rendering taxable services on which the tax was not paid by them. Thus, the service tax amounting to Rs. 14,89,476/- (7,21,677 + 3,45,730 + 4,22,069) was recoverable from them along with interest as per the provisions of the Act." (emphasis supplied) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he period prior to 01.07.2012 is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Arpanna Automotives. The observation of the Tribunal are as follows: "6. xxxxxxxxx. As regards the Service Tax liability on the amount retained by appellant on the RTO fees paid and collected from the customers, we find that the Service Tax liability is confirmed on the appellant and other category Business Auxiliary Service. xxxxxxxxxx. xxxxxxxxxxx It can be seen from the above definition prior to 10-9-2004 the services may not be applicable in issue in hand, as appellant may not be providing promotion or marketing of service provided by the client or any customer care service on behalf of the client. Appellant is helping their customer who purchase the vehic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e vehicles, I find that Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai, in the case of Arpanna Automotive Pvt. Ltd., as reported in 2016(02) LCX0141 have held that amount charged to help motor vehicle buyers to avail registration with RTO under Motor Vehicle Act does not amount to Business Auxiliary Service or Business support service. Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai in case of My Car Pune Pvt. Ltd.in Appeal No. ST/89422/13 have also drawn the same/ similar conclusion. The demand of the service tax in respect of the registration of the motor vehicles, is therefore, not tenable. 6.2 I find that the demand of the service tax has been made, for the period from 1.7.2012 considering the service tax to be payable as the alleged services constituted a declared service. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demand could not have been confirmed. Learned counsel for the appellant also stated that the said order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has attained finality and this fact has not been controverted by the learned authorised representative appearing for the department. 13. Even otherwise, the second and the third show cause notices do not propose to demand service tax under section 65B(44) of the Finance Act and merely refer to the first show cause notice which, as noticed above, proposed demand of service tax under BAS. Apart from the fact that the demand could not have been confirmed under section 65B(44) of the Finance Act for the reason that the activity cannot be considered as a declared service under section 66E(e) of the Financ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
