Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Car dealers' logistics and handling charges during vehicle sales exempt from service tax under section 65B(44)</h1> <h3>Surjeet Auto Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Central Excise, Bhopal (MP)</h3> Surjeet Auto Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Central Goods, Service Central Excise, Bhopal (MP) - TMI Issues Involved:1. Whether the amounts collected as 'logistics handling expenses' by the appellant are exigible to service tax.2. Applicability of penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Exigibility of Logistics Handling Expenses to Service Tax:- Facts and Allegations: The appellant, engaged in trading Hyundai cars and related services, collected 'logistics charges' from customers for services like loading, unloading, and washing of cars. The Department alleged that these activities constituted a service under clause 44 of Section 65(B) of the Finance Act, 1994, and thus were liable for service tax. The appellant had paid a significant portion of the service tax before the issuance of the show cause notice.- Adjudicating Authority's Decision: The adjudicating authority held that logistics services provided by the car dealer to the customer constituted a service as defined under sub-section 44 of Section 65(B) of the Finance Act, 1994, and thus were subject to service tax. However, it also noted that 97% of the tax was voluntarily paid before the show cause notice, thus reducing the penalty under Section 76 of the Finance Act.- Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that the logistics charges were part of pre-sale activities and should be included in the value of the goods sold, thus subject to VAT and not service tax. They cited Circular No. 699/15/2003-CX and case laws such as M/s Automotive Manufacturers Pvt. Ltd V/s CCE and M/s Indian Oil Corporation Ltd V/s CCE to support their claim.- Department's Argument: The Department contended that the appellant did not disclose the logistics charges in their returns and did not seek any clarification from the Department, thus justifying the imposition of service tax and penalties for suppression.- Tribunal's Analysis and Decision: The Tribunal noted that logistics charges were collected as part of the sale of cars and were pre-sale activities, thus forming part of the value of the goods sold and subject to VAT, not service tax. The Tribunal referenced several case laws, including CCE v. Seva Automotives Private Limited and Automotive Manufacturers Private Ltd v. CCE, which supported the view that handling charges related to the sale of goods are not subject to service tax. The Tribunal also highlighted that bundled services related to the sale of cars should be treated as a single service, primarily the sale of cars, which is excluded from the definition of service under Section 65B (44) of the Finance Act, 1994.2. Applicability of Penalties under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994:- Commissioner (Appeals) Decision: The Commissioner (Appeals) imposed a mandatory penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, on the grounds of suppression of facts.- Appellant's Argument: The appellant argued that the penalty under Section 78 was not justified as they had already paid a significant portion of the tax voluntarily and there was no mens rea involved. They also contended that the demand should be restricted to the normal period due to the absence of any intention to evade tax.- Tribunal's Analysis and Decision: The Tribunal found that the logistics charges were part of the sale of cars and thus not subject to service tax. Consequently, the imposition of penalties under Section 78 was not warranted. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal with consequential relief.Conclusion:The Tribunal concluded that logistics/handling charges collected by the appellant were part of the sale of cars and thus subject to VAT, not service tax. The penalties imposed under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994, were also set aside. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found