2008 (11) TMI 55 - AT - Service Tax

Authorized dealer - agreement with financial companies for arranging finance for vehicles sold by them to their customers - decision of authorities in holding that the appellant render business auxiliary services to finance companies and the service charges received by them are to subject to service tax is legal & does not call for any interference - interpretation of question of law is involved - not a fit case for imposition of penalty so, penalties imposed are set aside along with interest

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of business auxiliary services for service tax liability; Applicability of penalties under Section 76, 77, and 78.

Analysis:
The appeal in this case was against the Order of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 23.3.2006, concerning the service tax liability on service charges received by the appellant. The appellant, an authorized dealer of a vehicle manufacturer, had arrangements with financial companies to facilitate vehicle financing for customers, receiving service fees in return. The authorities held that these charges represented business auxiliary services, subject to service tax and penalties.

The appellant argued that arranging finance was to enable customer vehicle purchases, not exclusive promotion of finance services, and thus did not constitute business auxiliary services. Citing legal precedents, the appellant contended that a service benefiting both self and a third party does not necessarily mean service to the third party. The appellant emphasized that the primary goal was promoting their own vehicle sales, with incidental benefits to finance companies.

The Departmental Representative argued that the appellant's activities fell under business auxiliary services, as per the terms of the agreements requiring promotion of finance schemes, documentation handling, and customer assistance. The Tribunal considered the nature of the appellant's role, noting that while promoting finance schemes was limited to vehicles sold, the appellant was effectively promoting the finance companies' services. The Tribunal highlighted that mutual benefits are common in business relationships, and the appellant's actions were not solely for the finance companies' benefit.

Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the authorities' decision, concluding that the appellant rendered business auxiliary services to the finance companies, justifying service tax on the charges received. However, considering the legal interpretation involved, the Tribunal set aside the penalties imposed under Section 76, 77, and 78. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with no penalties upheld.

In summary, the judgment clarified the scope of business auxiliary services for service tax liability, emphasizing the broader business context and mutual benefits in service relationships. The decision balanced the appellant's primary business promotion with the incidental benefits to finance companies, leading to the service charges being subject to service tax while penalties were waived due to the legal interpretation involved.