TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2006, on discount allowed by the supplier of goods for sale to corporate customers, on commission from banks and financial companies and on payments received for insurance referral, the dispute that persists is limited to the demand for tax of Rs.3,70,994/- on the first of the issues and to the entirety of penalties imposed. 2. The appellant is an authorized dealer of M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt Ltd and, in accordance with their agreements, is allowed to offer discounts on sale of vehicles to their corporate customers to be reimbursed to them and had facilitated banks and financial companies, as well as insurance companies, to service loan and insurance requirements of customers from their premises. The demands were confirmed by the origin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntended that, insofar as the first issue is concerned, the demands for the subsequent period were dropped at the adjudication stage. 5. Learned Authorised Representative informs that the order for the subsequent period which dropped the demands arising therefrom had been accepted by Revenue. It was contended by him that the appellant had failed to discharge their tax liability at the appointed intervals on 'commission' earned by them and, therefore, the imposition of penalties was valid. 6. From the decisions cited by Learned Chartered Accountant, we find that the dispute pertaining to discount offered to corporate customers has attained finality. In this connection, the decision of the Tribunal in re Toyota Lakozy Auto Pvt Ltd, which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ribunal in Jaybharat Automobiles Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai [2015-TIOL-1570-CESTAT-MUM = 2016 (41) S.T.R. 311 (Tri.)], Sai Service Station Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai [2013-TIOL-1436- CESTAT-MUM = 2014 (35) S.T.R. 625 (Tri.)], Tradex Polymers Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Ahmedabad [2014 (34) S.T.R. 416 (Tri.-Ahmd.)] and Garrisson Polysacks Private Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, Vadodara [2015 (39) S.T.R. 487 (Tri.-Ahmd.)]. In re Jaybharat Automobiles Limited, the Tribunal held that "6.5 On the appeal by Revenue on the issue of incentives received by the appellant from the car dealer, we find that the relationship between the appellant and the dealer is on a principal t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter be remanded to the original authority for deciding afresh on the last two issues. The other two issues are not the subject of this remand as they stand decided in favour of appellant.' offers valid precedent. 7. Accordingly, the demand of Rs. 3,70,994/-, along with interest, and penalty under section 78 of Finance Act, 1994 fails to survive. 8. Appellant has admitted and discharged liability arising on receipt of 'commission' from financial institutions and insurance companies. We take note that in the decision of the Tribunal in re Addis Marketing, the exposition of the Tribunal in Gemini Mobiles Pvt Ltd v. Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax, Lucknow [2015- TIOL-15670-CESTAT-ALL] which examined several aspects ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion of BAS, spelt out in Section 65(19), then it would be legitimate to conclude that BAS is provided. 6. In the light of the Larger Bench ruling clarifying contours of BAS, in respect of transactions involving automobile dealers and banks or financial institutions, there was a bona fide doubt as to whether appellants herein had provided BAS during the relevant period in issue. Therefore non-filing of returns and non-remittance of tax for rendition of BAS could not be characterised as arising with a view to suppression of material facts or failure to remit tax with an intent to evade the same, inviting application of the extended period of limitation under the proviso to Section 73(1) of the Finance Act, 1994. 7. The perio....