2011 (10) TMI 315 - AT - Service Tax

Arrangement of Vehicle Finance - it stands held in various decisions of the Tribunal that such arrangement of loans by the authorized dealers amount to providing of services under the category of business auxiliary services. However, in the same decision it stands held that since the issue involved is of interpretation of law, the penalties are not justified. One such reference can be made to the Tribunal s decision in the case of Roshan Motors Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut- (2008 -TMI - 31834 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) - no imposition of penalties by both the authorities below was justified.

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether arranging vehicle finances on a commission basis by an authorized dealer amounts to business auxiliary services liable to service tax.
2. Imposition of penalties under sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.
3. Refund of deposited duty and interest by the respondents.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The respondent, an authorized dealer of motor vehicles, provided services of authorized service stations and arranged vehicle finances for customers through various banks on a commission basis. The Revenue contended that such services constituted business auxiliary services, making the appellants liable for service tax. The Assistant Commissioner confirmed the demand, and the Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal, citing confusion in the field and the absence of suppression by the assessee. The Tribunal held that arranging loans by authorized dealers amounts to providing services under business auxiliary services. However, penalties were deemed unjustified due to the interpretation of the law, as seen in the case of Roshan Motors Ltd. vs. CCE, Meerut-2009.

Issue 2: The Assistant Commissioner found no reasonable cause for failure on the part of the respondents, invoking section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994, and refrained from imposing penalties under sections 76 and 78. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, considering the bonafide nature of the respondents' actions, as they had deposited the entire duty along with interest before the issuance of the show cause notice. The Tribunal, following precedent, rejected the Revenue's appeal, emphasizing that penalties were not justified in cases involving interpretation of the law.

Issue 3: The respondents sought a refund of the duty and interest deposited by them. However, since the order confirming the duty remained unchallenged by the respondents at any stage, the Tribunal rejected the cross objections for a refund, stating that it was not open for the respondents to claim a refund under these circumstances.

In conclusion, the Tribunal rejected both the Revenue's appeal and the respondents' cross objections, maintaining that the imposition of penalties was not justified and denying the refund of the deposited duty and interest due to the unchallenged confirmation of duty by the respondents.