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

2023 (6) TMI 698

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , on conclusion of appellate proceedings, limited to the confirmation of Rs. 3,17,161/- in order order-in-appeal no. 168/2009 dated 5th May 2009 of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Mangalore and on the ground that the said activities are not covered by section 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994. 2. The appellant is an authorised dealer of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd and the original authority confirmed recovery of Rs. 6,52,521/- arising from non-discharge of tax liability on 'extended warranty service' for Rs. 1,92,971/- sold to customers, from finance documentation charges of Rs. 36,26,320/- collected from M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd, from commission of Rs. 29,32,016/- on insurance policies sold to customers and from charges of Rs. 2,03,178/- t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... uring the warranty period, such activity did not constitute taxable service. It was also contended that such activity may, if at all, be categorized as rendering of 'authorised service station' service but not the service alleged to have been rendered in the show cause notice. 5. On charges collected for registration of new vehicles, Learned Counsel submits that section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994 is not attracted owing to such agency function not having been entrusted, or even entrustable under the authority of the relevant statute, to them by the registering authority. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in Rohan Motors Ltd vs. Commissioner of Central Excise [2021 (45) GSTL 315 (Tri.-Del.)], in Toyota Lakozy Auto Pvt Ltd .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ined by the appellant; neither was the appellant in receipt of any payment for performance of additional servicing on cars purchased by customers. Tax on consideration for 'business auxiliary service', as defined in section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994, is predicated upon rendering of service on behalf of client who becomes obliged to recompense provider of the service and absence of even one element in the intermeshed transaction precludes coverage thereunder. That the appellant undertakes any warranty-related handling of vehicles at the instance of M/s Maruti Udyog Ltd will not, of itself, establish that taxable service under section 65(105)(zzb) of Finance Act, 1994 had been rendered. 8. In the light of the decision [final order no. A/85 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . 1055 (Tri.)]. This Tribunal, in its recent order in M/s. Arpanna Automotives Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise [Final Order Nos. A/85827-85828/16/STB, dated 3rd February, 2016] [2016 (43) S.T.R. 397 (Tri.)], held that "7. In our considered view helping the purchaser with registration with the RTO, cannot be any consideration by Business Auxiliary Service, in view of the foregoing, we hold the Service Tax demand of the amount retained by the appellant in respect of RTO registration fees is not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside. This Bench in the case of Wonder Cars Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I - 2016-TIOL-190-CESTAT-MUM has held that amount collected as extra charges for RTO registra .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... g insurance policies of vehicles sold by appellant has been sought to be taxed as 'business auxiliary service' defined in section 65(19) of Finance Act, 1994. The policies are issued by insurance companies to purchaser of cars and, from the records, it appears that it is neither M/s Maruti Udyog Limited, whose dealer the appellant is, nor the appellant who offers such service. There is also no evidence of ostensible arrangement of appellant with the insurance company or of any direct payment to the appellant for sale of such policies. That M/s Maruti Udyog Limited, who may have had an arrangement with the insurance company and chose to part with some of the commission received therefrom to dealers, did incentivize sale of policies by the ap .....

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