TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (8) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TML and the Appellant and ST-3 returns filed by the Appellant for the period from April 2009 to September 2012, the Department alleged that the Appellant has not paid appropriate service tax on the amount received as 'commission' on vehicle sale, sales promotion and incentive which fall under the category of 'Business Auxiliary Services'. It was also alleged that the Appellant had not paid service tax on the amount of reimbursements received by them towards free service and warranty, under the category of 'Authorized Service Station Service'. 2.1. Accordingly, a Show Cause Notice dated 24.10.2013 was issued to the appellant demanding service tax of Rs.91,28,574/-, Education Cess of Rs.1,82,572/- and Secondary and Education Cess of Rs.91,286/- along with interest and penalty. The appellant has contested the demands vide their reply dated 03.12.2013, on merits as well as on limitation. The Ld. Commissioner has passed the impugned Order-In-Original dated 28.11.2014 confirming the demand of service tax of Rs.87,92,750/- along with interest and penalty. 2.2. The break-up of the demands confirmed in the impugned order is as follows: Sl. No. Head of se....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....abour cost and not a consideration subject to service tax. It is further submitted in this regard that it is the obligation of TML to provide certain after-sale services at no cost to customers, with the associated expenses reimbursed to the Appellant; therefore, as TML bears these expenses and incorporates them into the assessable value of their vehicles, subject to excise duty, imposing service tax on these amounts would essentially result in double taxation; since TML covers the expenses for after-sale services, which are already included in the assessable value for excise duty, thus negating the basis for their inclusion in taxable value for service tax purposes. With regard to the reimbursement of labour, the Appellant submits that the same has become taxable with effect from 01.07.2012, from which date applicable service tax has been discharged by them. 4.1. The Appellant further submits that the issue is no longer res integra since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already decided this issue by stating that that until May 14, 2015, reimbursable expenditure or cost in consideration for services were not included prior to the amendment of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 2015 and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the Department has always had the knowledge of the uniform practice of the entire industry including the Appellant; therefore, to state that only in the course of audit the information came to light, is absolutely incorrect. Hence, it is contended that the allegation of suppression in this regard is unsustainable. 5.1. The Appellant relies on the following decisions in support of their contention that when an assessee was under a bona fide belief, then extended period of limitation is not invokable: • CCE v. Vineet Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2002 (144) ELT 292 (SC)] • CCE v. Raptakos Brett & Co. [2006 (194) ELT 101 (Tri.- Mum.)] • M/s Wave Infratech Pvt. Ltd. vs. Comm. of C. Ex. & S.T., Lucknow [2018-TIOL-3107-CESTAT-ALL] 5.2. In view of the above, the appellant submitted that the demand under the head of 'Business Auxiliary Service' to the extent of Rs.38,43,373/- and under the head of 'Authorized Service Station Services' to the extent of Rs.6,93,796/- is liable to be set aside as being time barred. 6. The Ld. Authorized Representative appearing for the Revenue reiterated the findings in the impugned order. 7. Heard both si....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ground has held that the demand being vague is not enforceable against the respondent. We do not find any reason to infer any different view than expressed by the lower authorities as without specifying the activity and the nature of service of the respondent he cannot be taxed. Further out of the seven clauses under Section 65(19) no clause has been pointed out under which the respondent is liable for service tax.[emphasis supplied] In the case of United Telecom Ltd., Vs CST, Hyderabad [2011 (22) STR 571 (Tri-Ban)] the Bench has held as follows: 2.3 In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the Original Authority himself was not clear under which category of service the activity of the appellants was liable Service tax. The Commissioner (Appeals) reproduced Section 65A(2), the statutory provision for classification of a taxable service prima facie classifiable under two or more sub-clauses of Clause 105 of Section 65 and observed as follows:- "The lower authority has obviously not followed principles detailed supra and clearly erred in holding that the services rendered by the appellants are classifiable under both "Business Auxilia....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the reimbursement of labour, we agree with the submission of the that the same has become taxable only with effect from 01.07.2012. The appellant submitted that with effect from 01.07.2012, service tax has been discharged by them on the reimbursement of labour. 10.1. We also observe that the issue is no longer res integra since the Hon'ble Supreme Court has already decided this issue by stating that that until May 14, 2015, reimbursable expenditure or cost in consideration for services were not included prior to the amendment of Section 67 of the Finance Act, 2015. Therefore, in the absence of such charging section, no service tax can be charged on the reimbursements received by the appellant. We find that this proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Intercontinental Consultants & Technocrats Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2018 (10) GSTL 401 (SC). The relevant paragraph of the said judgement is reproduced below: - "31. In the aforesaid appeals, the issue is as to whether the value of free supplies of diesel and explosives in respect of the service of 'Site Formation and Clearance Service' can be included for the purpose of assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ce Act, 1994 while confirming the demand under Authorized Service Station Services. Thus, we hold that the demand is unsustainable on this ground also. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of the CESTAT in the case of NPS Construction v. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Pondicherry [2024 (4) TMI 532 - CESTAT CHENNAI] wherein it has been held as under: "7. The main contention put forward by the appellant is that the show cause notice does not mention the category of service under which the demand is raised. On perusal of the show cause notice as well as the order-in-original, we note that the category of service has not been mentioned at all. It is merely stated that from the statements recorded from persons of M/s Neyveli Lignite Corporation, various services in the nature of "Management, Maintenance or Repair Services, Manpower supply Agency Services and Commercial or Industrial Construction Services" have been provided by the appellant. On perusal of the annexure to the show cause notice, it is seen that there is nothing mentioned as to the category of service. The annexure merely states the description of work done in the invoices. The adjudicating au....