9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (12) TMI 1026X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es are classifiable under 'Motor Vehicle Repair Service'/ 'Taxable Service' as per Section 65(105)(zo)/65B(51) of the Finance Act, 1994. 2. M/s. AVG Motors, the Appellant is an authorized dealer of M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (MSIL) for their passenger cars and is registered with Central Excise Department as service provider under the category of 'Authorized Service Station' and 'Business Auxiliary Service'. During the course of sale of new vehicles from their showroom, Appellant used to arrange for temporary registration or permanent registration of the vehicle with RTO. Similarly, while taking delivery of new vehicles, if customer requires certain additional works such as mat fixing, Teflon coating and ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eld that the activity of registration is not covered under 'business auxiliary service' and the department has not challenged the said decision. Facts being so, demand of service tax on charges for registration of the vehicle is unsustainable. 4. As regards the service tax demand against cost of Teflon coating, mat fixing and other accessories fitting, Ld. Counsel submitted that such activities are done by the Appellant when vehicles are rolled out of the showroom after sale. The Appellant used to collect the cost of the material and service charges from the customer, when the vehicle is sold. The Ld. Counsel further submits that the Appellant were undertaking such activities when the vehicles are in their possession as the vehicle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. Ld. Counsel also submits that the demand is barred by limitation as there is no reason or justification to invoke the extended period of limitation. As regards penalty, there is no allegation regarding intention of the appellant to suppress any facts or contravening any provision of law and in the absence of any intention to evade payment of tax, no penalty can be imposed. The Ld. Counsel relied on Final Order No. 70112/2022 dated 17.06.2022 in the matter of M/s. TS Motors India Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of CGST & CE, Lucknow - CESTAT Allahabad, 6. Learned Authorised Representative (AR) reiterated the finding in the impugned order and also draws our attention to the definition of 'business auxiliary service' and submits that all ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing the taxability of services like Teflon coating, mat fixing and other accessories fittings, the issue is also considered by the Tribunal in large number of decisions, and it is held that the assessee is not liable to pay service tax for such activity since it involved both material and service charge. Further the Ld. Counsel for the Appellants admits that they were paying service tax on the actual charges with effect from 01.07.2012. Facts being so, no service tax can be confirmed on the Appellant prior to 01.07.2012. Regarding the consideration, Ld. Counsel draw our attention to reply to show cause notice and the statement produced as Annexure and submits that the Adjudicating authority has not considered the same and confirmed the dema ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
