9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 562X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... services under the category of 'servicing of motor vehicles' and business auxiliary service. Basing on the allegation that the appellants have been receiving consideration under extended warranty from the new vehicle buyers and they are not offering the said consideration for service tax; that they have availed common input service tax credit of Rs. 24,75,562/- and did not follow the procedure laid down under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, a demand notice was issued demanding service tax of Rs. 19,81,588/- on the extended warranty under authorized service station for the period April 2006 to March 2011 and demanding irregular credit of Rs. 24,75,562/-. After due process, the demand was confirmed by Addl. Commissioner, Service Tax. Agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by such an order, an appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after granting an opportunity of representing the case and considering the submissions made by the appellant and his Counsel, came to a conclusion that the impugned order-in-original rejecting the refund claim was correct and accordingly rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel after taking the Bench through the case records submits that the entire plea of the appellant has been misconstrued by the lower authorities. It is his submission that the issue of discharging service tax liability on the amounts received as extended warranty is liable to be paid, is finalized by the first appellate authority in their own case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st. Manager, Accounts of the appellant. 5. Ld. DR reiterate the findings of the lower authorities. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made, I find that there is no dispute as to the facts that the appellant herein is providing extended warranty on vehicles to their customers as directed by M/s Hyundai Motors India Limited. For giving such services, appellant receives consideration from the customers. It is seen from the records that the entire case made up by the Revenue is on the ground that the amounts collected from the customers for extended warranty services given needs to be taxed while it is the case of the appellant that the amounts collected towards extended warranty is taxable but only to the extent of the amount ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idavit filed by the appellant herein indicates some figure which needs to be considered by the first appellate authority to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the refund application filed by the appellant is acceptable or otherwise. 8. In view of the foregoing, the issue of correct tax liability on the amounts retained by the appellant needs to be considered, then the adjudicating authority needs to reconsider the issue in respect of correct amount retained. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving all issues open, the matter is remitted back to the adjudicating for coming to a conclusion after considering all the records that may be produced by the appellant. Appellant is at liberty to produce any documents on w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
