2009 (7) TMI 817 - AT - Service Tax

Waiver of pre-deposit delivery of manufactured vehicle at the dealer s point - role of the Appellant to make the goods movable amounting to providing of business Auxiliary service - appellant has already made deposit - pre-deposit waived

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the demand, including service tax, education cess, and S. H. Ed. Cess, for transportation of motor vehicles is valid.
2. Whether the appellant provided Business Auxiliary Service to the manufacturer for delivering vehicles to the dealer's point.
3. Whether the appellant should be directed to make a pre-deposit of the whole demand.

Analysis:
1. The appellant argued that the demand of Rs. 2,23,93,676/- was not for any service provided but for transporting vehicles from the manufacturer's point to the dealer's point. The appellant contended that the vehicles themselves were transports and were moved with their assistance. Additionally, the appellant had already deposited Rs. 1,01,03,716/- in aggregate to reduce litigation, which was nearly 50% of the demand. The appellant requested a stay on the realization of the balance demand until the appeal was disposed of.

2. The Revenue argued that the appellant's role in delivering manufactured vehicles to the dealer's point constituted Business Auxiliary Service, as they provided business support to the manufacturer. The Revenue relied on para 22.2 of the adjudication order to support this claim and requested the appellant to make a pre-deposit of the entire demand. The Tribunal noted that the obligation of delivering vehicles involved both the manufacturer and the dealers, with the appellant's role being to make the goods movable from the manufacturer's point to the dealer's point. The question of whether this role amounted to providing Business Auxiliary Service was to be decided in the appeal.

3. After hearing both sides and examining the records, the Tribunal considered that the appellant had already made a significant deposit of Rs. 1,01,03,716/- following the adjudication order. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to waive the pre-deposit of the balance demand raised by the impugned order during the pendency of the appeal. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court by the Tribunal.