2025 (6) TMI 444

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....for providing various taxable services. During the course of audit and the scrutiny of records of the appellant, department observed that during the period from April 2013 to September 2016 appellant has received an amount of Rs. 5,12,75,205/- as incentive from M/s Hyundai Motors India Limited and M/s Mobis India Ltd. against the sale of motor vehicle/spare parts. It is alleged that the said amount is a consideration against the provision of taxable service which is not covered either under the negative list of Section 66D of Finance Act nor in the mega exemption Notification No. 25/2012. Hence appellant is liable to pay service tax on the said amounts. With these observations that the Show Cause Notice No. 40/2017 dated 26.09.2018 was serv....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Jodhpur- 2024 (8) TMI 206 - CESTAT NEW DELHI; (vi) M/s S.K. Cars India (P) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of GST & Central Excise, Salem- 2023 (6) TMI 243 - CESTAT CHENNAI; (vii) M/s Roshan Motors Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Central Goods and Service Tax, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 2022 (8) TMI 1254 - CESTAT NEW DELHI With these observations, order under challenge is prayed to be set aside and the appeal is prayed to be allowed. 5. Learned Departmental Representative has acknowledged about the decisions covering the issue involved in the present appeal to have already been in favour of the appellant. However, the findings of the order under challenge are re....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ce Act." 7. Coming to the plea of invocation of extended period, we observe that the show cause notice dated 30.09.2020 has proposed the demand of service tax for the period from 2014-15 to 2017-18 (up to 30.06.2017). The above findings have already clarified that there was no liability of paying service tax on the part of the appellant vis-à-vis the amount of discounts/incentives /reimbursements being received by it. It is also apparent and admitted fact that the appellant was otherwise discharging the tax liability on the amount of commissions and other interest related income. Hence there seems no act on part of the appellant which amounts to evasion of tax. There is nothing on record produced by the department to prove the all....