9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 921X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra). We also find that recently the Tribunal of Mumbai, in the case of My Car (Pune) Pvt. Ltd. [ 2023 (6) TMI 995 - CESTAT MUMBAI ] held that Department does not dispute that there was such agreements, scheme between the appellant in the car manufacturers and the account of the appellant only reflect the actual discount allowed to them. Department's argument is that the said discount/commission is in view of services rendered by the appellant by way of popularisation of the sales and consumption of the products by the end customer. We find it difficult to accept the conclusion arrived at in the impugned order that all the discounts/commission/incentives given by the manufacturer for the various types of targets achieved in terms of the number of vehicles sold under a particular model/category, consistent achievement of targets by each quarter, exchange bonus etc., are to be treated as compensation for the services rendered by the appellants by way of popularization of sales and purchase of the cars of the manufacturer. The element of sales promotion or marketing services is involved only when the appellants provide some service to the end customer in sale of the cars. If the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs. 1,08,696/- under Section 73(1) along with education cess amounting to Rs. 2174/- and interest and also proposed to impose penalty under Section 77(i) and 77(2) and 78 of Finance Act, 1994. 3. The appellant contested the charges by filing its reply dated 08.05.2013 on various grounds, the Assistant Commissioner vide Order-in-Original dated 28.06.2013 held that the appellant acted as a Commission Agent to the extent of Commission received and confirmed the demand and also imposed equivalent penalty and fine. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Commissioner (Appeal) has rejected the appeal of the appellant. Hence, the present appeal. 4. Heard both the parties and perused the record. 5. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order is not sustainable in law and the same has been passed without properly appreciating the facts and the law and the binding judicial precedents. He further submits that the appellant is an authorized dealer of SAIL and not Commission Agent. The goods are purchased from SAIL for which the appellant pays to SAIL on its own account. The goods purchased from SAIL are sold by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ax. The Transaction between SAIL and the appellant dealer was on principal to principal basis and the discount of 1.5% was an incentive for lifting the specified quantity of 300 MTs per month. We also find that this issue has been examined by the Tribunal in various cases relied upon by the appellant cited (Supra). We also find that recently the Tribunal of Mumbai, in the case of My Car (Pune) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Pune-I reported in 2023 (9) Centax 285 (Tri.-Bom) as considered this issued in detail and has also examined the earlier cases decided by the Tribunal on the incentive/commission paid by the manufacturers of Car on achieving sales targets. 9. The Tribunal in this case has also examined whether the activity carried on by the appellant falls under the business auxiliary service as defined in Section 65 (19) of the Finance Act. The Tribunal has also examined whether the appellant can be called Commission Agent rendering business auxiliary service. In this regard, it is pertinent to reproduced the said findings of the Tribunal contained in para 6.2 as under : 6.2 We find that the relevant sub-clause invoked in the impu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dered by the appellants by way of popularization of sales and purchase of the cars of the manufacturer. The element of sales promotion or marketing services is involved only when the appellants provide some service to the end customer in sale of the cars. If the discounts/commission/incentives are given in terms of the specific schemes or an agreement entered by the manufacturer of car with the appellants, then such transaction cannot be overstretched to categorize it as service for the purpose of charging service tax. 10. The Tribunal has also observed in the following paras: 6.3 We also find that the dispute pertaining to the issue of service tax liability on discounts/commission offered to car dealers by manufacturer has attained finality in view of the decisions taken by this Tribunal and the Apex Court in a number of cases. In this connection, we refer to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-1 v. Sal Service Station Limited 2014 (35) S.T.R. 625 (Tri.-Mumbai), the relevant portion of the order is extracted below: 14. In respect of the incentive on account of sales/target incentive, incentive on sale of vehicles and incentive on sale of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
