2016 (12) TMI 855 - AT - Service Tax

Service Tax liability - Business Support Services - period July, 2007 to December, 2009 and January, 2010 to December, 2010 - amount collected by appellant as an extra charge which are nothing RTO Registration charges, Smart Card fees, vehicle registration fees, fuel cost, number plate cost, articles of pooja of vehicle, documentation charges and handling charges - Held that - Identical issue decided in the case of Wonder Cars Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I 2016 (1) TMI 738 - CESTAT MUMBAI , where it was held that the definition of Business Support Services as per Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act covers services which are rendered as indicated therein - demand unsustainable as held in this identical case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Service Tax liability under Business Support Services category for extra charges collected by the appellant from customers.
2. Interpretation of the definition of Business Support Services under Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act.
3. Applicability of the precedent set by the Tribunal in a similar case.

Analysis:

1. The appeals were filed against the Order-in-Appeal confirming the demand of Service Tax, interest, and penalties on extra charges collected by the appellant from customers, apart from the sale price of vehicles. The appellant argued that these charges were for RTO Registration charges, Smart Card fees, vehicle registration fees, fuel cost, number plate cost, articles of pooja of vehicle, documentation charges, and handling charges. The Tribunal noted a similar case where it was held that such charges did not fall under Business Support Services for Service Tax liability.

2. The Tribunal examined the definition of Business Support Services under Section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, which includes various services related to business and commerce. The Tribunal found that the extra charges collected by the appellant did not align with the services enumerated in the definition. The first appellate authority's argument that the appellant was providing customer relationship services was deemed incorrect as the definition referred to entities providing such services, not customers themselves. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that the appellant's services did not fall under the category of Business Support Services for Service Tax liability.

3. The Tribunal upheld the appellant's argument based on a previous decision where a similar issue was decided in favor of the appellant/assessee. The Tribunal found no reason to deviate from the precedent set in that case. Consequently, the impugned orders confirming the Service Tax liability on the extra charges were set aside, and the appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the interpretation of relevant legal provisions, and the application of precedent to reach a decision in favor of the appellant.