9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 337 - AT - Service TaxSupport service of business or commerce - charges collected by appellants for getting the vehicles sold by them registered under the Motor Vehicles Rules and obtaining of smart card and similar documents for the buyers - demand of service tax - HELD THAT - The issue is covered by the decision of the Tribunal in Kundan Cars Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune I 2017 (7) TMI 133 - CESTAT MUMBAI which has relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in WONDER CARS PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PUNE I 2016 (1) TMI 738 - CESTAT MUMBAI where it was held that the customer of car is not a business entity, so called business service to the customer of cars is not in relation to business of commerce of the customer of cars. Therefore service in question is not covered under Business Support Service - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
Leviability of tax as provider of 'support service of business or commerce' under section 65(104c) of Finance Act, 1994 on charges collected for vehicle registration and obtaining smart card. Comprehensive Analysis: Issue 1: Leviability of Tax on Charges Collected for Vehicle Registration and Smart Card: The appeals revolved around the question of whether tax is applicable on charges collected by the appellants for registering vehicles under Motor Vehicles Rules and obtaining smart cards for buyers, under the category of 'support service of business or commerce' as per section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, 1994. The Tribunal analyzed the submissions made by both sides and referred to previous decisions in similar cases to reach a conclusion. Issue 2: Interpretation of 'Business Support Services' Definition: The Tribunal delved into the definition of 'support services of business or commerce' as per section 65(104c) of the Finance Act, which includes various services related to business operations. The Tribunal scrutinized whether the services provided by the appellants, such as RTO registration and handling charges, fell within the ambit of this definition. The Tribunal highlighted that the definition encompasses specific services and that the charges collected did not align with those services as per the statutory provision. Issue 3: Precedent and Judicial Interpretation: In citing the decisions in Kundan Cars Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise and Wonder Cars Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of judicial precedent in determining tax liability. The Tribunal underscored that the charges collected by the appellants, including RTO registration fees and smart card charges, did not qualify as 'Business Support Services' based on the judicial interpretations in previous cases. Issue 4: Decision and Ruling: Based on the analysis of the statutory definition, precedent cases, and the specific services provided by the appellants, the Tribunal concluded that the charges collected for vehicle registration and smart cards did not fall under the category of 'Business Support Services'. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, aligning with the rationale presented in the Wonder Cars Pvt Ltd case, where similar charges were deemed not taxable under the specified category. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment clarified the tax liability concerning charges collected for vehicle registration and smart cards, emphasizing the interpretation of 'Business Support Services' and relying on judicial precedents to arrive at a decision favoring the appellants.
|
