9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (12) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vehicles for which the Appellant billed the vehicle owners could not have been under the banner of M/s Tata which was not concerned with such activity. The Appellant is neither the agent of M/s Tata nor they have acted on behalf of M/s Tata. In such case the Agency by Estoppel cannot be applied in the present case. It is fit to remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for Denovo consideration who would decide the case on merits as well as time bar aspect - appeal allowed by way of remand. - ST/722/12-MUM - A/90712/17/STB - Dated:- 9-11-2017 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) And Mr. Raju, Member (Technical) Shri. J. C. Patel, Advocate with Ms. Chandni Tanna, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. R. Kapoor, Commissioner ( A. R. ) for the Respondent ORDER Per : Ramesh Nair The fact of the case is that the Appellant are engaged in carrying out the work of servicing of the Tata Vehicles. The said work is carried out by them in terms of internal agreement made with M/s Pandit Automotive Pvt. Ltd. who are authorized Dealer and Service Center of M/s Tata Motors and the activity was undertaken by the Appellant in premises of M/s Pandit Automotiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h manufacturer. That the service center is not their but of M/s Pandit Automotive which is undisputed. The definition is with reference to a service station or center which is authorized and not with reference to any person. The Servicing was undertaken at the service centre of M/s Pandit Automotive and not the Appellants. The Authorised Service station was liable to be taxed. It was only w.e.f from 01.05.2011 that the definition was changed to the effect that the taxable service was amended to mean any service provided or to be provided to any person by any other person and the definition of authorized service station was omitted. Thus prior to 01.005.2011 the service being taxable was with reference to authorized service station or centre which is authorised by M/s Tata and owned by M/s Pandit Automotive. Hence they are not liable for tax. He submits that in SCN it was stated that as the Appellant has no written consent from M/s Tata for to be jobber or sub agent and hence would become authorized service station of M/s Tata as M/s Tata was aware of arrangement between M/s Pandit and Appellant and therefore liable for service tax is misconceived. If without consent the Appellant c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue submits that M/s Tata Motors were aware that the appellant were rendering after sales service and since they were providing satisfactory services to the customer, they did not object. The Appellant firm was using words Authorised Workshop of M/s Tata Motors on the job card and other stationeries and were also using software provided by M/s Tata Motors for generating bills. This shows that Appellant was acting as an Authorised Service station of M/s Tata Motors as there was approval of M/s Tata Motors. As regard clarification given by the department that the Appellant is not liable to tax, the clarification was obtained by mis-representation of facts. M/s Tata were aware that servicing was done by Appellant and also visited the premises. Some of the machines were owned by M/s Pandit Automotive and some by Appellant. The law does not provide that the authorization given to Authorized Service Station should be written. That M/s Tata Motors in their letter dt. 20.10.2010 has stated that they found that the Appellant are providing satisfactory services to their customers and hence did not object to same and that they are aware of arrangements made by M/s Pandit Automotive through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot raise any objection to the said practice as they were concerned with the satisfactory service. In case of servicing/ repairing of vehicles which were outside warranty we find that only the labour charge bills were issued by the Appellant directly to the customer and the bills do not contain any indication that they are rendering service as Authorized service station to M/s Tata Motors. From the letter dt. 10th October 2010 of M/s Tata addressed to Superintendent (Preventive) we find that the Tata brand was used by Appellant on job cards and other stationary only. However we find that these documents were only internal documents for use. The software of M/s Tata was also used in- house. Also we find that M/s Tata further informed the Department that they do not interfere with the internal affairs of the Dealership as far as working is concerned. We find that even the enquiry vide letter dt. 09.07.2010 with respect to the Appellant is in context as to whether M/s Tata Motors has authorized M/s Pandit Automotive to allow the Appellant for servicing of Tata Vehicles from their premises of M/s Pandit Automotive to which M/s Tata Motors has replied in negative. We find that as far as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en M/s Tata and M/s Pandit Automotive. We however find that none of these clause implicate Appellant as service provider to M/s Tata or that M/s Tata has approved the Appellant as jobber of M/s Pandit Automotive. Only for the reason that the stationary or software of M/s Tata or that M/s Tata were not concerned with Appellant working for M/s Pandit Automotive would not lead to situation that the Appellant has stepped into the shoes of M/s Pandit Automotive. Clearly in case of servicing and repairing of vehicles for which the Appellant billed the vehicle owners could not have been under the banner of M/s Tata which was not concerned with such activity. We thus find that the above facts require re-consideration. 7. The revenue has relied upon Section 237 of the Indian Contract Act to show that no objection of Appellant of M/s Tata Motors to the act of Appellant would lead to the conclusion that the Appellant are authorized representative of M/s Tata Motors. We are not inclined with this contention of the revenue for the reason that if the Appellant is termed as Agent of M/s Tata Motors there could not have been any recovery from Appellant under the Authorized service station as th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
