9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 514X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dy paid - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - ST/85956/2013 - A/85860/17/SMB - Dated:- 14-2-2017 - Shri C J Mathew, Member (Technical) Shri Shailendra Jain, Chartered Accountant for the appellant Shri S R Nair, EO (AR) for the respondent ORDER This is the second time that this dispute has travelled to the Tribunal. On the former occasion, the matter was remanded back to the first appellate authority as the appeal had been dismissed by that official for non-compliance with the order of pre-deposit. Order no. PVR/44/NGP/2013 dated 28th January 2013 passed on merit by Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Nagpur is impugned in these proceedings. 2. The impugned order upheld the demand of ₹ 1,29, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated the findings in the impugned order. 4. Having perused the various submissions, the issue stands settled by various decisions. In ASL Motors Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Patna [2008 (9) STR 356 (Tri-Kolkata)], it was held that 4. We find that the Ministry in its Circular No. 28/2006-Cus. (sic) (Circular No. 87/05/2006-S.T.), dated 6-11-06 has clarified that where service charges are reimbursed by the vehicle manufacturers, such reimbursement should be subjected to service tax. However, it is well-known that free servicing is normally provided by the dealers in the vehicle trade meeting the expenses from the dealers margin, yet the Ministry has chosen to keep silent regarding taxability of such free s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bjected to sales tax. Consequently, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. 5. Likewise, in Indus Motor Company v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Cochin [2008 (9) STR 18 (Tri-Bang)] it was held that 6. The learned Departmental Representative pointed out that there is reimbursement to the appellant for the services rendered. The Bench wanted the learned JDR to show the evidence for reimbursement for the services rendered. He was not in a position to show us any evidence for reimbursement. The Adjudicating Authority has stated that the cost for the services rendered is actually hidden in the cost of the vehicles itself. Thus, we find that the demand of Service Tax in these cases is based on assumptions and presumption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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. 6. In the light of the foregoing, we find that the appeal filed by the Revenue is not sustainable and is therefore dismissed. 7. For the above reasons, the demand in the impugned order cannot sustain and is set aside. 8. Appeal is allowed. (Pronounced in Court on 14/02/2017) - - TaxTMI - TMITax - Servic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
