Refurbishment of used vehicles as self-service was not taxable where ownership passed on payment and delivery.

Service tax was held not to apply to refurbishment of used vehicles acquired by the appellant, because title passed on payment and delivery and later mutation in transport records was only consequential. Refurbishment undertaken while the vehicles were in the appellant's ownership was treated as self-service and not as a taxable service rendered to another person. On that footing, the demand and connected penalty did not survive, and consequential relief followed in law.

---

---

Issues: Whether service tax was payable on the service portion involved in refurbishment of purchased used vehicles sold by the appellant, or whether the refurbishment constituted self-service for which no service tax was payable.

Analysis: The dispute turned on whether the appellant acquired ownership of the used vehicles upon payment of price and delivery, or whether absence of mutation in registration records meant that the vehicles remained outside its ownership. The governing principle applied was that, for movable goods, sale is complete when property is transferred for a price and delivered, and registration before the transport authority is only consequential. On that basis, the refurbishment carried out while the vehicles were in the appellant's possession was treated as an activity undertaken for its own value addition and not as a taxable service rendered to another person.

Conclusion: The refurbishment of purchased used vehicles was self-service and not liable to service tax.

Final Conclusion: The demand and connected penalty did not survive, and the appellant was entitled to consequential relief in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Where title in a used vehicle passes on payment and delivery under the Sale of Goods Act, refurbishment undertaken by the buyer during its own ownership is not a taxable service merely because registration transfer occurs later.

---