2018 (12) TMI 1794 - AT - Service Tax

Business Support Services - Handling charges collected by the Appellant from customers over and above the legal charges viz. smart card fee, vehicle registration fee etc. for getting the vehicle registered with RTO authorities - levy of service tax - HELD THAT - The issue involved in this Appeal is no more res integra in view of the decision of this Tribunal in Appellant s own case on the very same issue in the matter of Wonder Cars Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I 2017 (5) TMI 342 - CESTAT MUMBAI while deciding this issue in favour of the Appellant, held that any charges towards the registration of the car cannot be regarded as BAS. There are no reason to deviate from the view taken by the Tribunal - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
Whether handling charges collected by the Appellant from customers for vehicle registration are liable to service tax under Business Support Service category?

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in Pune. The main issue revolved around the liability of handling charges collected by the Appellant from customers for vehicle registration under the category of Business Support Service. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the Chartered Accountant for the Appellant and the Authorised Representative for the Revenue, along with the case laws submitted. The Tribunal noted that a similar issue had been previously decided in the Appellant's own case in Wonder Cars Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I. In that case, it was held that RTO charges and extra charges related to vehicle registration do not fall under the support service of business or commerce. The Tribunal also cited other cases where similar views were taken, such as Sehgal Wheels Pvt. Ltd. and My care Pune Pvt. Ltd. Based on the consistent view of the Tribunal in previous decisions, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal in favor of the Appellant. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the established precedent, thus deciding the issue in favor of the Appellant and granting consequential relief, if any.

Conclusion:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai, comprising Mr. C.J. Matehw, Member (Technical) and Mr. Ajay Sharma, Member (Judicial), ruled in favor of the Appellant in the appeal regarding the liability of handling charges collected for vehicle registration under the Business Support Service category. The Tribunal relied on previous decisions and established precedent to conclude that such charges do not fall under the purview of business support services, thereby allowing the appeal and providing consequential relief to the Appellant.