9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (11) TMI 1392X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he category of BAS specified under Finance Act, 1994 and are liable to Service Tax w.e.f. 01.07.2003. Such promotion of business of financial help promoted the business of the appellant also and does not alter the character of BAS. This Tribunal in the case of City Honda [2017 (10) TMI 801 - CESTAT BANGALORE] have already considered this issue in detail and has come to the conclusion that the appellants are providing the services of “Business Auxiliary Service” and therefore, liable to pay Service Tax. Further CBEC Circular No. 87/05//2006-ST dated 06.11.2006 clarified that Service Tax will be payable by the dealer on the gross amount received from the Financial Company. The liability of Service Tax against the appellants is sust ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the same. Penalty of ₹ 200/- per day under Section 68 of the Finance Act, 1994 and equivalent penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 is also imposed. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, the appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner (A) who rejected the same. 3. Heard both sides and perused the records of the case. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable in law as the same has been passed without properly appreciating the definition of Business Auxiliary Service . He further submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the binding judicial precedent. He also submitted that the appellant has only provided the space to M/s. Maruthi Udyog Ltd. for facilitati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the tax on commission received was brought under the Service Tax net only w.e.f 10.09.2004 and hence, the demand of Service Tax for the period prior to 10.09.2004 is not sustainable in law at all. He also submitted that the demand is barred by limitation as the issue relates to interpretation of definition of BAS‟ service and there were conflicting views on the issue. In support of this submission, he relied upon the following decisions: (i) Addis Marketing Vs. CCE, Mumbai- 2017 (50) STR 56 (Tri. Mum.). (ii) VED Automotives Vs. CCE., Kanpur- 2016 (44) STR 140 (Tri. All.). 5. On the other hand, the learned AR defended the impugned order and submitted that the appellant is receiving the amount as percentage of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the category of BAS specified under Finance Act, 1994 and are liable to Service Tax w.e.f. 01.07.2003. Such promotion of business of financial help promoted the business of the appellant also and does not alter the character of BAS. Further, We find that this Tribunal in the case of City Honda and M/s. AVG Motors Ltd. cited supra have already considered this issue in detail and has come to the conclusion that the appellants are providing the services of Business Auxiliary Service and therefore, liable to pay Service Tax. The Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of AVG Motors Ltd. cited supra has also considered the CBEC Circular No. 87/05//2006-ST dated 06.11.2006 wherein inter alia the following issue or question has be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndependent transaction between the automobile dealer and the purchaser of the vehicle, and does not involve the service rendered by the automobile dealer to the finance company. Therefore, the tax payable by the dealer would be on the gross amount received from the financial company and not on the balance amount, i.e., after excluding the amount that he passes on to the customer. 6.2 The Tribunal in the case of TVS Motor Co. Ltd. Vs. CCE, Chennai, 2012 (28) STR 127 (Tri. Chennai) on the subject has observed as under: 12. Facts and evidence aforesaid when tested on the touchstone of Section 65(105)(zzb) read with Section 65(19) of the Act that warrants taxation of the consideration received by the appellant from banks and insu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
