9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1674 - AT - Service TaxBusiness Auxiliary Service - case of Revenue is that the assessee viz. M/s. L.M.J. Service Ltd. did not provide any service to the customer and the money received by the assessee viz. M/s. L.M.J. Service Ltd. is not related to services under Business Auxiliary Service - Held that - The incentives received by the assessee from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. are related to sale and purchase of cars and they are having different nomenclature for the same like loyalty discount/claim/incentive demo claim expenses claim and so on - Revenue has not been able to prove that these amounts or incentives relate to services rendered under Business Auxiliary Service by the assessee viz. M/s. L.M.J. Service. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues:
Revenue's appeal against rejection of Order-in-Original No. 84/2011 related to services under 'Business Auxiliary Service'. Analysis: The judgment involves an appeal by Revenue against the rejection of Order-in-Original No. 84/2011, dated 13-6-2011. The Order-in-Original stated that the assessee, M/s. L.M.J. Service Ltd., did not provide any service to the customer, and the money received by them was not related to services under 'Business Auxiliary Service'. This order was upheld by the Order-in-Appeal dated 15-1-2013, leading to the Revenue's appeal before the Tribunal. Both sides were represented during the proceedings, with the Revenue represented by Shri M.R. Sharma, AR, and the respondent, M/s. L.M.J. Service Ltd., represented by CA Shri Pradeep Jain. Upon reviewing the records and hearing both parties, it was found that the incentives received by the assessee from M/s. Maruti Udyog Ltd. were linked to the sale and purchase of cars and had various names like loyalty discount, claim, incentive, demo claim, and expenses claim. The Revenue failed to establish that these incentives were connected to services provided under Business Auxiliary Service by M/s. L.M.J. Service. Consequently, the impugned order was upheld, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed for lacking merit. Additionally, cross objections were also addressed and disposed of during the proceedings. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in open court by Ashok K. Arya, Member (T) of the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI.
|
