TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ded would have been to the dealer who sold the vehicle by the dealer who has actually provided the services and therefore the service tax is leviable. In that case the receiver of services would not be the purchaser but the dealer who has originally sold the vehicle. Therefore the fact that the dealer gets reimbursement when he provides service in respect of the vehicles sold by others would not help the Revenue. – Demand and penalties set aside. - ST/183/2008 - A/831/WZB/Ahd/2009-CII - Dated:- 8-4-2009 - Shri B.S.V. Murthy, Member (Technical) (Final Order No. A/831/WZB/Ahd/2009-CII dt. 8.4.2009 certified on 27.4.2009 in Appeal No. ST/183/2008) Shri Hardik Modh, Adv. for Appellant Ms. M.I.J. Micheal, Jt. CDR for Respondent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... period or not, there is no difference in the sale price. No refund or rebate in cash is given to the purchaser of the vehicle even in cases where he does not avail free services during the warranty period. Therefore the whole transaction has to be treated as one of sales and an individual transaction and therefore service tax cannot be levied. 3. Ld. Jt. CDR on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in M/s. Saj Flight Services P. Ltd. [2006 (4) STR 429 (Ker)] has held that merely because of transaction is treated as one of sale by the State Government for the purpose of levy of sales tax, it does not mean that service tax cannot be collected on the same transaction. Hon'ble High Court observed that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own to the appellant and the MUL. In reality this is no free service at all. Since the service has, been provided, taxable event has taken place and the customers have been charged for which appellants are liable to service tax. She also submits that the extended period has been rightly invoked in view of the fact that even though the fact of free service was known to the Department, Department did not know that the MUL had fixed specific amount as the cost of free service. 4. Ld. Advocate in his rejoinder refers to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BSNL [2006 (2) STR 161 (SC)] to submit that in this case the transaction is an individual transaction and the intention of the parties concerned is only sale of the vehicle an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
