2014 (1) TMI 359 - AT - Service Tax

Demand of service tax - Authorized Service Station - Use of logo of M/s Tata Motors on the job-card - Use of software system SIEBEL of M/s Tata Motors - Whether the appellant can be considered as an Authorized Service Station of M/s Tata Motors as per Section 65(9) of the Finance Act, 1994 - Held that - appellants are carrying out repair, reconditioning/restoration of the motor vehicles manufactured by M/s Tata Motors. From the documentary evidence available on record and also from the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 of the officials of the appellant firm, it is clear that the appellant is undertaking the after sales service of the vehicles manufactured by M/s Tata Motors not only during the warranty period but also afterwards and it is also seen that 13 employees of the appellant firm have undergone training from M/s Tata Motors for undertaking the services and repairing of the vehicles manufactured by M/s Tata Motors. Inquiry conducted with M/s Tata Motors revealed that though M/s Pandit is a dealer for the vehicles manufactured by M/s Tata Motors, they had a private arrangement with the appellant and since the appellant was providing satisfactory services to the customers of Tata Motors, they had not objected to the services being rendered by the appellant. The letter also reveals that they have provided full access of the software namely, CRM and SIEBEL, to the appellant for tracking and providing after sales services to consumers. The letter also reveals that M/s Tata Motors were aware that their brand name has been used by the appellant on their job-cards and other stationery and it has never been objected to by M/s Tata Motors. We have also perused the job-card issued by the appellant which clearly reveals that the appellant has claimed themselves to be authorized workshop of Tata Motors in the job-cards issued by them to the customers and also in the job-slips and the bills for the services undertaken by them. From these evidences available on record, it is clear that the appellant has been functioning as an Authorized Service Station of M/s Tata Motors and, therefore, the services rendered by the appellant is prima facie classifiable under the category of Authorized Service Station . Appellant had declared before the department that they are not an authorized service station and it was in that context, it was clarified by the department that they need not get registered as an authorized service station. However, it was also mentioned that they should get registered with Service Tax Department if the circumstances changed. This clarification given is a conditional one based on the information provided by the appellant and when the appellant started rendering services as an authorized workshop of M/s Tata Motors, it was incumbent upon them to bring the same to the notice of the department, which has not been done in this case. Therefore, the allegation of suppression of facts raised against the appellant is prima facie sustainable - Prima facie case not in favour of assessee - Conditional stay granted.

Issues:
1. Whether the appellant can be considered as an 'Authorized Service Station' of M/s Tata Motors.
2. Whether the demand for Service Tax is barred by limitation.
3. Whether there are errors in the computation of Service Tax demand.
4. Whether the appellant's financial hardship justifies waiving pre-deposit of dues.

Issue 1: Authorized Service Station
The appellant, an automotive service provider, was alleged to be an 'Authorized Service Station' of M/s Tata Motors, leading to a Service Tax demand. The appellant argued against this classification, stating they were not officially appointed as such. However, evidence showed the appellant undertook post-warranty services for Tata Motors vehicles, trained by Tata Motors, and used Tata Motors' software. Statements and documents indicated a close relationship with Tata Motors, including daily visits and access to specific software. The Tribunal found the appellant acted as an 'Authorized Service Station' based on the evidence provided.

Issue 2: Limitation for Demand
The appellant claimed the demand was time-barred, citing a 2001 departmental clarification that they need not pay Service Tax. However, the Tribunal noted the clarification was based on the appellant's declaration of not being an authorized service station. As the appellant started providing services as an authorized workshop later, they were required to inform the department, which they failed to do. The allegation of suppression of facts was considered valid.

Issue 3: Computation of Service Tax Demand
The appellant raised concerns about errors in the calculation of the Service Tax demand. However, the figures were provided by the appellant's director and were not disputed earlier. The Tribunal stated that disputing the calculation required a formal application, which the appellant did not submit. The issue was not entertained at the interim stage of considering stay.

Issue 4: Financial Hardship
The appellant argued financial hardship due to losses incurred. Despite the losses, the appellant had significant current assets. The Tribunal found no prima facie case for an unconditional stay, considering the appellant's financial position and other factors. A pre-deposit of a specified amount was directed, with further actions contingent on compliance.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the classification of the appellant as an 'Authorized Service Station,' rejected the time-bar defense, did not entertain computation disputes at the interim stage, and directed a pre-deposit due to lack of a prima facie case for an unconditional stay.

---

← Previous Next →