Automobile company's Extended Warranty Scheme service tax demands partially allowed under Section 66E(e) for post-2012 period

CESTAT Chennai ruled on service tax demands for Extended Warranty Scheme (EWS) charges collected by an automobile company. For the pre-2012 period, the tribunal set aside demands under repair to vehicle services, following precedent that such services involve both materials and service components. For post-2012 period, the tribunal upheld service tax liability, classifying EWS as a declared service under Section 66E(e) - creating obligation to perform future acts rather than actual repair work. However, penalties and extended period demands were set aside due to bona fide belief and lack of suppression, as the appellant had classified EWS under works contract services and paid taxes accordingly.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the demand of service tax raised for the period from 01.05.2011 to 30.06.2012 under Section 65(105)(zo) on the consideration received by the appellant for Extended Warranty Service (EWS) is sustainable or not.
2. Whether the demand of service raised under Section 65B(44) for the period post 01.07.2012 on the consideration received by the appellant for Extended Warranty Service (EWS) is sustainable or not.

Summary:

Period prior to 01.07.2012:
The Tribunal examined whether the demand raised u/s 65(105)(zo) on the consideration received for EWS is sustainable. The Department argued that the definition of 'Repairs to Vehicle Services' was amended from 01.05.2011 to include services provided by any person, not just authorized service stations. The appellant contended that the EWS involves a composite contract of labor and materials, classifiable under Works Contract Services (WCS). The Tribunal, referencing the decision in M/s. Ford India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2023 (8) TMI 409-CESTAT Chennai], held that prior to 01.07.2012, the demand under Section 65(105)(zo) cannot sustain as the service involves both materials and labor, thus falling under WCS. Consequently, the demand for this period was set aside.

Period after 01.07.2012:
The Tribunal then examined the demand post 01.07.2012, where the Department classified the EWS under Section 65B(44) of the Finance Act, 1994, which includes declared services. The appellant argued that the EWS involves replacement of parts and thus should be classified under WCS. The Tribunal noted that the EWS is essentially an assurance to repair in the future, not an immediate repair service, thus falling under Section 66E(e) as a declared service. The Tribunal held that the EWS is a service u/s 65B(44) read with Section 66E(e) and upheld the demand for the normal period post 01.07.2012, setting aside the demand for the extended period and the penalties due to the interpretational nature of the issue and the appellant's bona fide belief.

Conclusion:
1. The demand, interest, and penalties for the period prior to 01.07.2012 were set aside.
2. The demand and interest for the normal period post 01.07.2012 were upheld, while the extended period demand and penalties were set aside. The appeals were partly allowed with consequential reliefs.

---