9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 353X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from either MUL or the customers for providing such free service. Accordingly it is held that no service tax is payable on the free service provided by the appellant. - Appellant also argued that with respect to demands raised; under the head of Workshop Service charges for financial year 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and demand under delayed payment of service tax for financial year 2003-2004; they have been able to reconcile certain payments made which clearly indicate that more service tax has been paid then what is demanded. We find that such a verification of claims made by the appellant can only be properly done by the Adjudicating Authority. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee. - Service Tax Appeal No.479 of 2010 - ST/A/52 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L ; (v) Incentive on Spare Parts ; (vi) Reimbursement of Advertisement Expenses ; (vii) Balance Score Card ; (viii) Incentive on sale of Wagon R and Alto Cars ; (ix) Incentive of Free Credit ; (x) Incentive on sale to employees of LIC, SBI, Fetchers Scheme etc. ; (xi) Incentive for sale of Esteem Maruti 800 etc. ; (xii) Misc. Spot Credit IFC (Interest Free Credit) ; (xiii) Moss (Maruti Online Services) ; (xiv) Free Mega Checkup Camps ; (xv) Exchange Charges TV (True Value) and Non TV ; and (xvi) Free Services Charges. 2.1 Learned Advocate made the Bench go through each of the above schemes/incentives/reimbursements, as discussed by the Adjudicating Authority in para 14 of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. It was his case that this verification of correct service tax payment can be made by the Adjudicating Authority for correct demand on workshop service charges for financial year 2004-2005. That a short brief can be filed with respect to demand under the head delayed payment of service tax for the financial year 2003-2004 also it was argued that excess payment has been made by the appellant, which needs verification. 3. Shri B.B. Sharma (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue argued that all the incentives received by the appellant from MUL are designed to advertise and promote the business of MUL and has to be considered as providing of BAS, as has been correctly done by the Adjudicating Authority. Learned AR thus strongly defended th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eimbursed by MUL and not from dealers margin. Such an activity will be covered within the definition of BAS under Section 65 (19) (iii) of the Finance Act, 1994 and has been correctly held as taxable by the Adjudicating Authority. (iii) Free Services Charges - It is the case of the appellant that no separate charges are claimed from MUL for providing free services and the expenses for providing free services are met from dealers margin. Appellant relied upon the case law of CCE, Indore Vs. Jabalpur Motors Ltd. [2014 (36) S.T.R. 1160 (Tri. Del.)] wherein CESTAT, Delhi held as follows in para 4 and 5 :- 4. We have considered the facts of the case. Authorised Service station is defined as under : 'authorised service stat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f salary of drivers of vans used for providing mobile service to the car owners shown in column 4 of the table, it is evident that the customer in this case is the car owner who is the recipient of service. M/s MUL receive no service nor are M/s MUL, the respondents customers. Thus the respondents have not provided the service of authorised service station to them (i.e. M/s MUL). Accordingly this amount cannot be made liable to service tax under the category of authorised service station service. There is no evidence on record that in the present appeal also any separate consideration is received by the appellant from either MUL or the customers for providing such free service. Accordingly it is held that no service tax is payable on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... based trade discounts and will not be in the nature of BAS commissions. On perusal of the case records and the factual matrix we agree with the arguments of the appellant that payments received on these accounts cannot be held to be classifiable as provision of taxable services of BAS under Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act, 1994. (v) On the issue of Exchange Charges True Value (TV) and non-True Value (non-TV), it is the case of the appellant that such activity is related to purchase of used pre-owned cars of Maruti and subsequently sale to other buyers after refurbishing or refurnishing. That such an activity is purely buying and selling activity of used/pre-owned cars and the same cannot be held to be provision of BAS to MUL. Appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
