2011 (11) TMI 614

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nder the provisions of the warranty currently in force. In terms of the warranty, the cost of parts incurred by the dealer in carrying out repairs or replacement of defective parts is in accordance with the procedure established by the manufacturer reimbursed by the manufacturer to the assessee. Application dismissed.
CHANDRACHUD D.Y. (DR) AND SAYED A.A. JJ. P.C. Joshi with Piyush Shah for the applicant S.K. Nair, A Panel counsel, for the respondent JUDGMENT The Sales Tax Tribunal by its impugned order dated April 18, 2011, has declined to make a reference to this court under section 61 of the Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959. The Tribunal has held that its judgment in the present case delivered on November 19, 2010, follows the law laid d .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... in material and workmanship, is given by the MUL to the customer. (iv) By virtue of dealership agreement the appellant is liable to settle the warranty claims made by the customers. (v) Replacement for defective part covered by warranty is done by the appellant out of his stock of purchased goods. (vi) Cost of parts incurred by the appellant in carrying out repair, or replacement of defective part is reimbursed by M/s. MUL." The Tribunal held that the present case is directly governed by the decision of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Ekram Khan and Sons v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2004] 136 STC 515 (SC). In Mohd. Ekram Khan and Sans v. Commissioner of Trade Tax [2004] 136 STC 515 (SC), the appellant was a registered dealer under .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n the. parties involved an agency whereas in the present case the transaction was on a principal to principal basis. This was based on a sentence in the judgment of the Supreme Court while recording the facts that the assessee was an agent of the automotive manufacturer. The Tribunal has considered this aspect in a significant amount of detail and has noted the submission of the Revenue that this expression was used in the judgment of the Supreme Court in its commercial sense. That apart, the Revenue produced a copy of the dealership agreement between the automotive manufacturer, Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd., and the assessee in Mohd, Ekram Khan's case [2004] 136 STC 515 (SC), which dearly showed, that the relationship was not of an agenc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X