TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 546
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rse of inquiry, the appellants were inquired about their Service Tax liability for the respective period of both the aforesaid Show Cause Notices. Vide reply dated 17.03.2017 with respect to the Show Cause Notice dated 20.11.2017 for period 2012-13 to 2016-17 (no such reply was submitted in the case of Show Cause Notice of 24.10.2013), details of income along with the audited balance sheets were submitted. On scrutiny of those documents, the Department observed that the appellants had earned taxable income under various heads which were not shown in their ST-3 Returns. Observing that the services provided by the appellant in respect of the Car insurance policies sold to the customers and receiving Commission from insurance companies, in arranging finance from Finance Companies and receiving Commission from such Bank / Finance Co. were in agreement with M/s.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (MUL herein) for sharing the expenses involved in organizing various event to advertise their products by way of reimbursement of certain part of said expenses that the appellant were providing business auxiliary services to MUL. Observing that the service being taxable but the liability has not been disc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....side. 5. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the final order of this Tribunal dated 17.2.2015 and upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. inter-continental Consultants and Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC). Both the appeals are accordingly, prayed to be allowed. 6. While rebutting these submissions, it is submitted that subject matter of three of the SCNs are different. Hence, appellant is not allowed to object to the invoking of extended period of limitation by the Department. Other issues, than the issues in the SCN of 16.10.2008 have been raised in the SCN dated 24.10.2013. The third SCN has, in addition, other different issues, which would not have come to the notice had there been no inquiry by the Department, as such, the extended period of limitation has rightly been invoked by the Department and thus, there is no infirmity in the order while upholding the same. The plea of the appellant that they had filed ST 3 returns regularly is not sufficient to deny the invocation of extended period as most of the returns have shown "Nil" taxable value against the services in question whereas huge amounts were being shown in the b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of SCN dated 16.10.2018 on the several issues as mentioned above stands already been set aside. Apparently, no appeal has been filed by the Department against the said order. The said decision, therefore, stands attained finality. 9. With respect to the SCN dated 24.10.2013, Department itself has dropped the demand except for demand of Service Tax on insurance commissions, advertisement expenses, reimbursement from MUL and on different job receipts. However, the adjudicating authority with respect to the third SCN of 20th November, 2017 has again confirmed the demand on all the issues raised in the said SCN despite this fact that most of them are similar to those in the prior two notices where all such demands have been already dropped except for the demand with respect to non-conciliation of ST-3 Returns, Service Tax on reimbursement of expenses from MUL, Cenvat Credit on inadmissible documents, and service tax under reverse charge mechanism on entire expenses appearing in audited and profit and loss accounts. 10. The issues which have been already decided by the Final of 17.12.2015, the decision thereof, were to be followed by the adjudicating authorities while adjudicating....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... service tax liability on finance pay outs falling under business auxiliary services. The adjudicating authority has failed to consider that the service tax liability with respect to finance pay outs, therefore, stands discharged though partly through cenvat and partly through cash. The demand is, therefore, held to have wrongly been confirmed. 3. Service tax on incentive received from MUL. It is observed that the appellant purchases vehicles from MUL and sells the same to the buyers. The agreement between appellant and MUL clarifies that appellant works on a principal to principal basis instead of working as an agent of MUL. Appellant, however, has agreed to undertake certain sales promotion activities as well. In the given circumstances, carrying out of such activities by the appellant is for the mutual benefit of the business of the appellant as well as for the business of the MUL. To my opinion, the amount of incentives received on such account cannot be treated as consideration for any service and the incentives received by the appellant therefore, are wrongly held livable to the Service tax. This Tribunal earlier in the case of Rohan Motors Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Cent....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat the facilitation charges collected from customers for registration of vehicles with RTO do not qualify to be as an amount towards providing business auxiliary service. The earlier decision in the case of Wonder Cars Pvt. Ld. vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune reported in 2016 (42) STR 1055 and in the case of M/s. Arpanna Automotives Pvt. Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise reported as 2016 (43) STR 397, it was held as follows: "7. In our considered view helping the purchaser with registration with the RTO, cannot be any consideration by Business Auxiliary Service, in view of the foregoing, we hold the Service Tax demand of the amount retained by the appellant in respect of RTO registration fees is not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside. This Bench in the case of Wonder Cars Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Pune-I - 2016-TIOL-190-CESTAT-MUM has held that amount collected as extra charges for RTO registration is not covered under "support services of business and commerce". 8. In view of the foregoing, the Service Tax liability confirmed under Business Auxiliary Service for the amount of RTO registration fees is set asid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The verification report as mentioned above has verified that total 8 ST-3 Returns were filed by the appellant during the financial year 2012-13 to 2015-16. The said Returns reflect the duty payment. The report also verifies that the duty paid challans mentioned in the ST-3 returns filed are also available in the ACES data. As per those ST-3 Returns, it is verified that the appellant has not availed any cenvat credit against the capital goods except they availed the credit against the input services received directly. Departments own verification report is, therefore, held to have falsify the confirmation of the demand on this count by the adjudicating authorities below. The confirmation is according liable to be set aside. 8. Reimbursement of Expenses from MUL. The appellant had duly submitted the affidavit issued by its Director dated 10.04.2018 wherein it has been specifically deposed as follows:- i. That during the course of trading of vehicles, the Noticee Company had offered discounts to their customers and later on such discounts were reimbursed by the MUL. ii. That all such reimbursements related to discounts receivd from MUL were shown in our audite....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....authorities higher to them in the appellate hierarchy. It cannot be too vehemently emphasized that it is of utmost importance that, in disposing of the quasi-judicial issues before them, revenue officers are bound by the decisions of the appellate authorities. The order of the Appellate Collector is binding on the Assistant Collectors working within his jurisdiction and the order of the Tribunal is binding upon the Assistant Collectors and the Appellate Collectors who function under the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The principles of judicial discipline require that the orders of the higher appellate authorities should be followed unreservedly by the subordinate authorities. The mere fact that the order of the appellate authority is not acceptable to the department - in itself an objectionable phrase - and is the subject-matter of an appeal can furnish no ground for not following it unless its operation has been suspended by a competent Court. If this healthy rule is not followed, the result will only be undue harassment to assessees and chaos in administration of tax laws." Hence the confirmation of demand on this score also cannot sustain. 9. Service tax under reverse charg....