Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Court-III
Service Tax Appeal No. 76 of 2007
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 117(GRM)/ST/JPR-I/2006 dated 21.1.2.2006 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs & Central Excise, Jaipur]
Coram: M Veeraiyan, Member (Technical); P K Das, Member (Judicial)
M/s Kamal & Company – Appellant
Vs
CCE, Jaipur – Respondent
Date of Hearing/decision: 5th January 2009
Final Order No. ST/10/09
P K Das: Heard both sides and perused the records.
2. |
The relevant facts, in brief, are that the Appellants are engaged in providing service of authorized service station. The Appellants provided free services to the customers during the warranty period of sale of car as per direction of M/s Tata Motors Ltd. We find that the issue involved in this case has already been decided by the Tribunal in favour of the assessee in the case of Hindustan Auto House (P) Ltd vs. CCE, Jaipur, reported in 2008 (89) RLT 541 (CESTAT-Del.) and also in the case of K P Automobiles Pvt Ltd Vs CCE, Jaipur, Final Order No. ST/370-72/08 dated 21.11.08. The relevant portion of the order of the Tribunal in the case of Hindustan Auto House (P) Ltd (supra) is reproduced below:-
"We have carefully considered the submissions. The 'free services' said to have been rendered by the Appellant to the purchaser of the vehicle is not really free.' The value of such services are already included in the price of the vehicle paid by the customers. The value has also been included for the purpose of paying excise duty and sales tax. It is also admitted that when the services are rendered by the Appellant to the purchaser of the vehicles, no payment or service charges are paid by the said customers. We have not been shown any evidence to show that the vehicle manufacturer has specifically reimbursed amounts for the said free services. The learned Authorised Representative submits that there is no actual reimbursement by Hyundai Motors towards service charges and he relies on the certificate of vehicle manufacturer in this regard. The learned DR is not able to produce any evidence contrary to this. Show cause notice has also gone on the presumption that one of the methods of reimbursement is to include the said service charges in dealer's margin. In other words, we find that in this case, the service provider has not received any service charge from the service recipient. We have also not been shown that the vehicle manufacturers have specifically reimbursed any amounts towards the said services. In these circumstances, payment of service tax and imposition of penalty under various sections are not sustainable."
|
| |
3. |
In view of the above decision, we do not find any reason to sustain the demand of tax. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)
(M Veeraiyan)
Member (Technical) |
(P K Das)
Member (Judicial) |
|
|
|
| |
|
