9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (1) TMI 359X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured by M/s Tata Motors, they had a private arrangement with the appellant and since the appellant was providing satisfactory services to the customers of Tata Motors, they had not objected to the services being rendered by the appellant. The letter also reveals that they have provided full access of the software namely, CRM and SIEBEL, to the appellant for tracking and providing after sales services to consumers. The letter also reveals that M/s Tata Motors were aware that their brand name has been used by the appellant on their job-cards and other stationery and it has never been objected to by M/s Tata Motors. We have also perused the job-card issued by the appellant which clearly reveals that the appellant has claimed themselves to be ‘authorized workshop' of Tata Motors in the job-cards issued by them to the customers and also in the job-slips and the bills for the services undertaken by them. From these evidences available on record, it is clear that the appellant has been functioning as an ‘Authorized Service Station' of M/s Tata Motors and, therefore, the services rendered by the appellant is prima facie classifiable under the category of "Authorized Service Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ervices rendered by the appellant during the warranty period and had also approved the same. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 18.4.2011 was issued to the appellant classifying the services rendered by them as those by an Authorized Service Station' and demanding Service Tax of Rs.4,48,26,443/- for the services rendered during 1.10.2005 to 28.2.2011 under the provisions of Section 73 of the Finance Act, 1994 along with interest thereon under Section 75 ibid and also proposing to impose penalties under Sections 76, 77 and 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. The said notice was adjudicated vide the impugned order wherein the adjudicating authority held the appellant to be an Authorized Service Station' of M/s Tata Motors and accordingly, confirmed the Service Tax demand along with interest thereon. A penalty of Rs.7000/- was imposed on the appellant for failure to furnish Service Tax Returns and failure to obtain registration. A penalty of Rs.4,48,26,443/- was imposed on the appellant under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994. Aggrieved of this decision, the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Counsel for the appellant made, inter alia, the following submissions:- (i) The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the appellant firm were given training by M/s Tata Motors and the appellant firm has also been writing "Authorized Workshop of Tata Motors" on the job-cards and other stationeries. The appellant is using SIEBEL software of Tata Motors for generating the invoices which is given only to the authorized dealers for tracking and providing after sales service. (iv) Inquiry with M/s Tata Motors revealed that they were aware that the appellant was rendering after sales service and since they were providing satisfactory services to the customers, they have not objected to the same. The dealership is visited by officials of Tata Motors on a daily basis and they were fully aware of the arrangement for sales and services of their automobiles. In view of the close relationship with M/s Pandit, they have never reduced into writing any approvals for changes and the layouts of the showroom, workshop etc. They have given full access of CRM and SIEBEL software to the appellant for tracking and providing after sales service and they were also aware that the TATA brand name has been used by the appellant on their job-cards and other stationery etc. From these submission, it is clear that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... M/s Pandit is a dealer for the vehicles manufactured by M/s Tata Motors, they had a private arrangement with the appellant and since the appellant was providing satisfactory services to the customers of Tata Motors, they had not objected to the services being rendered by the appellant. It is also evident from the letter dated 22.10.2010 issued by M/s Tata Motors that they have been visiting M/s Pandit and the appellant firm nearly on a daily basis and in view of the close relationship with M/s Pandit, they had not reduced into writing any approval that have been granted for the services undertaken by the appellant. The letter also reveals that they have provided full access of the software namely, CRM and SIEBEL, to the appellant for tracking and providing after sales services to consumers. The letter also reveals that M/s Tata Motors were aware that their brand name has been used by the appellant on their job-cards and other stationery and it has never been objected to by M/s Tata Motors. We have also perused the job-card issued by the appellant which clearly reveals that the appellant has claimed themselves to be authorized workshop' of Tata Motors in the job-cards issued by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um, they are completely silent on this aspect. Only in the course of argument by the learned Counsel, this point has been raised for the first time. If the appellant wanted to dispute the calculation, they should have moved an application for urging additional grounds seeking leave of this Tribunal, which they have not done. Therefore, at the interim stage of considering stay, we do not want to go into this issue now raised by the appellant for the first time. If appellant so desires, they should move an application for raising additional ground for revising the tax calculations. 5.4 As regards the financial hardship pleaded by the appellant, as per the balance-sheet the appellant had incurred losses during current year as well as the previous year. However, the appellant has substantial current assets of Rs.1.4 crore by way of trade receivables, cash and bank balances and short terms loans and advances. Considering the fact that the appellant has not made out a prima facie case for grant of stay and also taking into account interest of revenue, the financial hardship and other relevant factors, there is no room for grant of unconditional stay. 6. Therefore, considering all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
