TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,870/- has been confirmed and penalties of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77(1)(a), Rs. 5,000/- under Section 77(2) and Rs. 1,10,870/-under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 have been imposed on the appellant. 2. Briefly the facts of the present case are that the appellant is engaged in trading of Iron and Steel Products and are authorised dealer of SAIL for GP Coil/GP Sheet for which they have been appointed by SAIL as an authorised dealer vide letter dated 20.09.2002 and as per condition of the appointment letter the appellant is committed to lift a quantity of 300 MT per month. And if the said quantity is taken by the appellant then, SAIL gives 1.5% of the invoice value as discount/incentive/Commission. The Assistant commissioner Service....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pellant further submits that the appellant is duly registered with VAT/Sales Tax during the relevant period and had been paying the applicable VAT/Sales Tax payable on such sale. The Ld. Counsel also produced the copy of Invoice raised by the appellant. Ld. Counsel further submits that it is a settled judicial position that the activity of sale is outside the purview of Service Tax. 6. Ld. Counsel for the appellant further submits that payment of discounts is a well-known practice in trade which is given on many counts like Quantity Discount, Timely Payment Discount, etc. The transaction between SAIL and the present appellant Dealer was on principal to principal basis and the discount of 1.5% was an incentive for lifting the specified qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....SAIL on its own account as an owner of the said goods. The appellant is also registered with VAT/Sales Tax during the relevant period and has been paying VAT/Sales Tax. The Transaction between SAIL and the appellant dealer was on principal to principal basis and the discount of 1.5% was an incentive for lifting the specified quantity of 300 MTs per month. We also find that this issue has been examined by the Tribunal in various cases relied upon by the appellant cited (Supra). We also find that recently the Tribunal of Mumbai, in the case of My Car (Pune) Pvt. Ltd Vs. Principal Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax, Pune-I reported in 2023 (9) Centax 285 (Tri.-Bom) as considered this issued in detail and has also examined ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ere shall be a service provider and a service receiver/client (il) a service is required to be provided by the appellant to a client (iii) such service shall be in relation to business auxiliary services. In this transaction we find that firstly the sale of cars takes place from the manufacturer to the appellant-car dealer. Depending upon the various factors weighed upon by an individual end consumer, he purchases particular car/vehicle. In this process of sale of car, the appellant undertakes various activities to enable such sale of cars to ultimate end customer. The trade discount, incentives and commission offered by the car manufacturer M/s MSIL is in accordance with the agreement of the scheme announced by them. The Department does no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ealers by manufacturer has attained finality in view of the decisions taken by this Tribunal and the Apex Court in a number of cases. In this connection, we refer to the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Commissioner of Service Tax, Mumbai-1 v. Sal Service Station Limited 2014 (35) S.T.R. 625 (Tri.-Mumbai), the relevant portion of the order is extracted below: "14. In respect of the incentive on account of sales/target incentive, incentive on sale of vehicles and incentive on sale of spare parts for promoting and marketing the products of MUL the contention is that these incentives are in the form of trade discount. The assessed respondent is the authorized dealer of car manufactured by MUL and are getting certain incentives ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ived by the appellant under various schemes of the manufacturer cannot lead to the conclusion that the incentive is received for promotion and marketing of goods. It is not material under what head the incentives are shown in the Ledgers, what is relevant is the nature of the transaction which is of sale. All manufacturers provide discount schemes to dealers. Such transactions cannot fall under the service category of Business Auxiliary Service when it is a normal market practice to offer discounts/institutions to the dealers. The issue is settled in the case of Sal Service Station (supra). Therefore, we reject the appeal of the department." 6.5 Also, in the case of Toyota Lakozy Auto Private Limited v. Commissioner of Service Tax ....