9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1232X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir own case [2018 (10) TMI 650 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD] where it was held that 'Reference can be made to this Bench's decision in the case of Tanya Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Meerut-I [2016 (1) TMI 704 -CESTAT ALLAHABAD], wherein it was held by relying upon precedent decisions that the value of the parts used during the course of repair of the services would not represent the value of the services, so as to require their addition in the value of the services. Similarly the incentives received from Maruti Udyog for achieving targeted sale were held as not to be part of the value of the services.' Conclusion - The service tax demands on incentives, sale of goods, and services were not legally su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anty provided by MSIL to customers. The relevant portion of the agreement between the Appellant and MSIL is extracted below:- "C. The dealer would sell product and parts and would provide service to the customers (which would include, but not limited to, the service in terms of the warranty as per owner's manual provided by MSIL from time to time) in a manner which promote and maintains customer confidence and customer satisfaction on the terms and conditions mutually agreed to between the parties and contained in this Agreement". 3.1 The selling of spares/accessories to its customers is in nature of pure sale of goods. Accordingly, the Appellant is duly registered under the VAT Authority and duly discharging its VAT liability in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Department has considered service tax of Rs. 2,39,13,968/- paid as per service tax return. In the impugned Order-In-Original the demand as proposed in the SCN has been confirmed and penalty equivalent to 10% of the confirmed demand of the service tax is imposed under Section 76 of the Finance Act, 1994 & penalty of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed under Section 77 of the Finance Act, 1994. Hence the present appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Appellant submits as under:- (i) That the demand confirmed on the incentives is incorrect and is liable to be dropped as in this case, the Appellant has not rendered any service to MSIL. (ii) That the sale of accessories and spare parts by the Appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... favour of the Appellant in their own case by the Tribunal vide Final Order No. 72101 of 2018 dated 04.09.2018. Relevant para's of the judgment are reproduced below:- "2. While providing 'Maintenance and Repair Services' to various motor vehicles, the Appellant was using various parts and accessories/lubricants etc. and were billing them separately. By entertaining a view that the cost of such spare parts, lubricants etc. is required to be added in the cost of the services provided by them, proceedings were initiated against them resulting in confirmation of demand of Service tax to the extent of Rs. 1,64,21,070/-. In addition the Appellants were also being provided with various discounts/awards etc. from M/s. Maruti Udyog in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
