2018 (10) TMI 562

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ervice tax department for providing taxable services under the category of 'servicing of motor vehicles' and business auxiliary service. Basing on the allegation that the appellants have been receiving consideration under extended warranty from the new vehicle buyers and they are not offering the said consideration for service tax; that they have availed common input service tax credit of Rs. 24,75,562/- and did not follow the procedure laid down under Rule 6 of CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, a demand notice was issued demanding service tax of Rs. 19,81,588/- on the extended warranty under authorized service station for the period April 2006 to March 2011 and demanding irregular credit of Rs. 24,75,562/-. After due process, the demand was confi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aw rejected the refund claim. 3. Aggrieved by such an order, an appeal was preferred before the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority after granting an opportunity of representing the case and considering the submissions made by the appellant and his Counsel, came to a conclusion that the impugned order-in-original rejecting the refund claim was correct and accordingly rejected the appeal. Hence this appeal. 4. Ld. Counsel after taking the Bench through the case records submits that the entire plea of the appellant has been misconstrued by the lower authorities. It is his submission that the issue of discharging service tax liability on the amounts received as extended warranty is liable to be paid, is finalized by ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt due to appellant. He files an affidavit of Asst. Manager, Accounts of the appellant. 5. Ld. DR reiterate the findings of the lower authorities. 6. On careful consideration of the submissions made, I find that there is no dispute as to the facts that the appellant herein is providing extended warranty on vehicles to their customers as directed by M/s Hyundai Motors India Limited. For giving such services, appellant receives consideration from the customers. It is seen from the records that the entire case made up by the Revenue is on the ground that the amounts collected from the customers for extended warranty services given needs to be taxed while it is the case of the appellant that the amounts collected towards extended warranty....