2024 (12) TMI 1524 - AT - Service Tax

Taxability - Sale of Extended Warranty Consumer Care Services of Registration of Vehicles Agency Commission from Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Commission received from DGS D - non-registration of the respondent s unit - HELD THAT - Hon ble High Court has remanded the matter for reconsideration of the said demand. Appellant do not dispute the said demand in this remand proceedings as the same was never under challenge even in the appeal filed by them. They have admitted this demand of Rs 42, 799/- even at the time of adjudication. Thus the demand made in respect of this amount is upheld and the impugned order in respect of all other demands made set aside as the issue in respect of those has not been remanded for reconsideration as per the order of Hon ble High Court. Appeal disposed off.

Summary

ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

(1) Whether the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad was correct in allowing the appeal of the respondent and considering the Sale of Extended Warranty, Consumer Care Services of Registration of Vehicles, Agency Commission from Maruti Udyog Ltd., and Commission received from DGS&D as non-taxable services.

(2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in setting aside the Order in Original dated 30/10/2009 without giving any finding on the service tax liability of the respondent on Agency Commission from Maruti Udyog Ltd., DGS&D, and the non-registration of the respondent's unit at 21 Vidhan Sabha Marg, Lucknow.

ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: The Tribunal's decision on the non-taxability of certain services.

The Court noted that the Revenue did not press this question because the issues of Sale of Extended Warranty and Consumer Care Services of Registration of Vehicles had already been adjudicated against the Revenue. The aspects concerning Agency Commission from Maruti Udyog Ltd. and Commission received from DGS&D were addressed under Issue 2.

Issue 2: Service tax liability on Agency Commission and DGS&D Commission.

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The legal framework involves the definition of Business Auxiliary Services under the relevant tax statutes, which includes the promotion of sales and acting as a commission agent.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The High Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal to consider the findings of the Commissioner of Central Excise, who had determined that the Agency Commission and DGS&D Commission fell under Business Auxiliary Services, making them subject to service tax.

Key Evidence and Findings: The Commissioner had recorded that the appellant did not dispute the liability of Rs 42,779/- arising from the Agency Commission and DGS&D Commission. This amount was not contested before the Tribunal during the original appeal.

Application of Law to Facts: The Tribunal observed that the appellant had admitted to the liability during the adjudication process and did not challenge it in the appeal. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the demand for this amount.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellant and the Revenue both acknowledged the liability, and there was no dispute over this specific demand. The Tribunal focused on the admitted liability and did not address other demands that were not remanded for reconsideration.

Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the demand of Rs 42,799/- for the Agency Commission and DGS&D Commission while setting aside the impugned order concerning other demands that were not part of the remand proceedings.

SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Tribunal's significant holdings include:

The Tribunal confirmed the service tax liability of Rs 42,799/- for the Agency Commission and DGS&D Commission, as this amount was admitted by the appellant and not under dispute.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order concerning other demands, as these were not remanded for reconsideration by the High Court.

Verbatim Quote of Crucial Legal Reasoning: "Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The appellant will be entitled to consequential benefit, if any in accordance with law."

Core Principles Established: The Tribunal emphasized the importance of addressing only those issues remanded by the higher court and confirmed liabilities that were admitted and not contested by the parties involved.

Final Determinations on Each Issue: The Tribunal upheld the demand for the admitted amount related to the Agency Commission and DGS&D Commission and disposed of the appeal in these terms, while setting aside other demands not under reconsideration.