2018 (8) TMI 1282 - AT - Service Tax

Levy of Service tax - amounts received as commission from M/s Maruthi Udyog Limited (MUL) referring clients/purchasers of the cars for insurance purpose and for loan purposes - Held that - The service tax liability for the amounts received by the appellant during the period July, to September, 2004, from M/s Maruthi Udyog Limited is not taxable, is the view which has been taken by the bench in the case of The Mithra Agencies (supra) (wherein, one of us M.V. Ravindran was also Member) - penalties also set aside - appeal allowed. Tax demand for the period September, 2004 to January, 2007 - Held that - The claim of the appellant assessee that the said amounts needs to be considered as cum tax amount the amount needs to be accepted and tax liability needs to be worked out for which factual matrix needs to be appreciated - Matter remanded. Appeal allowed in part and part matter on remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to Order-in-Original No. 11/2008-ADJN (ST) dated 19.06.2008.
2. Service tax liability on commission received from M/s Maruthi Udyog Limited.
3. Applicability of Business Auxiliary Service definition.
4. Penalty under Sections 76, 77, and 78 of the Finance Act.
5. Tax demand for the period September 2004 to January 2007.
6. Requantification of tax liability.
7. Remand back to the Adjudicating Authority.
8. Principles of natural justice.

Analysis:

1. The appeals were directed against Order-in-Original No. 11/2008-ADJN (ST) dated 19.06.2008, with both the appellant assessee and the Revenue challenging the findings of the same order. The appellant contested the confirmed service tax with interest and penalty, while the Revenue appealed against the adjudication order, specifically regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act.

2. The lower authorities issued a show cause notice to the appellant/assessee, demanding service tax liability on commission received from M/s Maruthi Udyog Limited for referring clients for insurance and loan purposes. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the demands raised, along with interest and penalties under Sections 76, 77, and 78. The appellant contested the order on merits, while the Revenue appealed on the ground of penalty imposition.

3. The issue involved two main aspects: for the period July to August 2004, the appellant argued that the received amounts were not taxable under the Business Auxiliary Service definition. Reference was made to a previous case to support this argument. For the period September 2004 to January 2007, the appellant requested re-quantification of the tax liability, emphasizing the need for consideration of cum tax value and other claims.

4. The Departmental Representative raised concerns about the service tax liability on the amounts retained by M/s Maruthi Udyog Limited and the clarity regarding the discharge of tax liability. It was argued that penalty under Section 76 should be levied when tax liability is confirmed, especially for amounts received during July to September 2004, falling under Business Auxiliary Services.

5. The Tribunal found that the service tax liability for the amounts received by the appellant from M/s Maruthi Udyog Limited during July to September 2004 was not taxable, aligning with a previous decision. The appeal of the appellant against the Adjudication order for this period was accepted, and the impugned order and penalties were set aside.

6. Regarding the tax demand for September 2004 to January 2007, the Tribunal agreed with the appellant's claim for re-quantification based on cum tax value, remanding the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority for a detailed assessment. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to reconsider the issue, following principles of natural justice.

7. The Revenue's appeal was rejected for the period July to August 2004, as the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant. However, for the period September 2004 to January 2007, the Revenue's appeal was allowed for remand back to the Adjudicating Authority. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.

8. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following the principles of natural justice throughout the proceedings and ensured a fair reconsideration of the tax liabilities involved.