9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urther, for an activity to be considered a declared service as defined in clause (e) of the Section 66E of the Finance Act, 1994, the two parties must agree for the act or for refraining from an act, for a consideration. In the case of the appellant, though certain amounts, as mentioned above, were billed/ received, there was no such agreement for an act or refraining from an act between the appellant and any other person and no consideration was agreed upon. In view of the above, the amounts received/billed by the appellant neither constituted a consideration for providing a Business Auxiliary Service or Business Support Service prior to 1.7.2012 nor did the same fall within the ambit of a declared service with effect from 1.7.2012 - It would be seen from the aforesaid order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that even for the period post 01.07.2012 the activity could not have been considered as a declared service and, therefore, the demand could not have been confirmed. Even otherwise, the second and the third show cause notices do not propose to demand service tax under section 65B(44) of the Finance Act and merely refer to the first show cause notice which, as noticed abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by all the aforesaid three show cause notices as to why the services rendered by the appellant should not be classified under BAS. 4. The Commissioner has confirmed the demand with regard to the there all the show cause notices by giving a categorical finding that the amount received by the appellant was taxable under BAS. The relevant portions of the order passed by the Commissioner are reproduced below: 22. The third issue involved in the present dispute is whether the amount received by the party from third parties i.e. Individuals who were engaged in providing services related to processing and assistance in registration of vehicles with the Regional Transport Office could be subjected to service tax at the end of the party. 22.1 As per the facts available on records, the various Individuals were independently engaged in the business of providing registration related services to their clients. In respect of the customers who buy vehicles from M/s. SAPL, the party collects an amount (which includes statutory registration fee and some extra charges) from them and transfers the entire amount to these Individuals on the understanding that they would process the reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the facts of the present case I hold that the consideration received by M/s. SAPL from the third parties was in lieu of rendering taxable services on which the tax was not paid by them. Thus, the service tax amounting to Rs. 14,89,476/- (7,21,677 + 3,45,730 + 4,22,069) was recoverable from them along with interest as per the provisions of the Act. (emphasis supplied) 5. Shri Rajesh Chhibber, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the issue raised in the appeal for the period prior to 01.07.2012 stands decided in favour of the appellant by the decision of the Tribunal in M/s. Arpanna Automotives Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs Central Excise [2016 (43) S.T.R. 397 (Tri.)], which was subsequently followed by the Tribunal in the case of the appellant itself in M/s. Shakumbhari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise Service Tax, Meerut-I [Service Tax Appeal No. 50487 of 2015 decided on 18.10.2018]. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, for the period post 01.07.2012 placed reliance upon the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 19.12.2018 in the matter of the appellant, which appeal had been filed to assail t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al in the case of the appellant in M/s. Shakumbhari Automobiles Pvt. Ltd . 10. In view of the aforesaid discussion the Commissioner was not justified in confirming the demand of service tax under BAS for the period prior to 01.07.2012. 11. In regard to the period post 01.07.2012, the issue was decided in favour of the appellant by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the order dated 19.12.2018 and the relevant portions of the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are reproduced below: 6.1 Regarding the amounts pertaining to the registration of the vehicles, I find that Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai, in the case of Arpanna Automotive Pvt. Ltd., as reported in 2016(02) LCX0141 have held that amount charged to help motor vehicle buyers to avail registration with RTO under Motor Vehicle Act does not amount to Business Auxiliary Service or Business support service. Hon'ble CESTAT, Mumbai in case of My Car Pune Pvt. Ltd.in Appeal No. ST/89422/13 have also drawn the same/ similar conclusion. The demand of the service tax in respect of the registration of the motor vehicles, is therefore, not tenable. 6.2 I find that the demand of the service tax has been made, for the period ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
