2017 (12) TMI 1277 - AT - Central Excise

Business Auxiliary Services - whether Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Services have been rightly demanded on sales and other incentives received from Tata Motors, Commission received from banks/financiers, levy of Service Tax on hire purchase Commission/other charges, Job-work charges and demand of Service Tax on Freight earned from Tata Motors Limited.? Commission from bank/financial institution - Held that - incentive or discount or commission received from the banks and institutions does not lead to the conclusion that the appellant provided service to them. At the most, it may be in the nature of business support service which is not the case made out in the SCN - Service Tax is not payable on commission bank/financial institution. Hire purchase commission - Held that - such charges are being received from the buyers of vehicles for assisting in registration insurance etc. of the vehicles which is an essential requirement under the Motor Vehicle Act and the said receipts are not chargeable to Service Tax. Repossession charges - Held that - they are received by the owners of the vehicle, whose vehicles are repossessed by the financiers and for safekeeping are entrusted to the appellant - For such service or parking, the appellant received an amount from the vehicle owners which is not taxable under BAS. Further, these receipts are on principle to principle basis and on that score also are not liable to Service Tax. Job-charges - Held that - the learned Commissioner has himself held that the same is not taxable under BAS but under Authorized Service Station charge, which was not the case made out in SCN and as such the demand of service tax on these charges is not tenable. Service of commercial vehicle - Held that - the receipts for service of commercial vehicle is not taxable under the category of Authorized Service Station. Freight received from customers/Tata Motors - Held that - essential element of GTA that issuance of consignment notes was not done by the appellant and thus, the same cannot be liable to Service Tax as a GTA. Accordingly, no Service Tax is payable on this score also. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Whether Service Tax under the category of Business Auxiliary Services has been rightly demanded on sales and other incentives received from Tata Motors, commission received from banks/financiers, levy of Service Tax on hire purchase Commission/other charges, Job-work charges, and demand of Service Tax on Freight earned from Tata Motors Limited.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appellant, a registered entity for payment of Service Tax under various categories, was issued show cause notices for the period 2003 to 2011 demanding Service Tax on various transactions. The issues included demands on sales incentives, commission from banks/financiers, hire purchase commission, job-work charges, and freight earned from Tata Motors. The appellant contested these demands, arguing that certain transactions did not fall under the purview of taxable Business Auxiliary Services (BAS).

2. Sales and other incentives received from Tata Motors were deemed by the appellant as trade discounts attributable to trading activities and not involving any service element. The appellant argued that incentives were part of the manufacturer's policy and did not constitute taxable services under Service Tax provisions.

3. Regarding commission received from banks and financial institutions, the appellant clarified that they provided space to facilitate loan availability to vehicle buyers without actively marketing any services. The appellant contended that the commission received was not for Business Auxiliary Services but more akin to Business Support Services.

4. Hire purchase commission and other charges were explained as fees received for assisting customers in vehicle documentation, insurance, and registration, essential under the Motor Vehicle Act. The appellant argued that these charges were not for promoting any business and were directly collected from customers, thus not falling under taxable services.

5. Repossession charges were defended as parking fees collected from customers for vehicles repossessed by financiers, not involving services to banks/financial institutions. The appellant contended that these charges were not taxable under BAS.

6. The judgment analyzed job work charges and freight earned separately. Job work charges were found not taxable under BAS but under Authorized Service Station, a classification not mentioned in the show cause notice. Freight earned was deemed not taxable as a Goods Transport Agency due to the absence of consignment notes, thus not liable for Service Tax.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals on merits, setting aside the demands imposed by the adjudicating authority. The decision was based on the findings that various transactions did not constitute taxable Business Auxiliary Services, as argued by the appellant. The issue of limitation was left open for further consideration, granting the appellant consequential benefits as per the law.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the arguments presented by the appellant, the legal interpretation by the Tribunal, and the final decision on each issue involved in the case.