TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 638
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ism (RCM) under Section 66A of the Act and whether the appellant is liable to pay service tax under the category of Authorised Service Station under Section 65(105)(zo) read with Section 69(9) of the Finance Act, 1994. Appellant is engaged in manufacture of electric cars and alleging that during the period from April 2005 to March 2008, the appellant incurred certain expenditure in foreign exchange taxable under Section 66A, proceedings were initiated and adjudicating authority as per the impugned order confirmed the demand of tax vide order dated 22.09.2010. The adjudicating authority also confirmed the demand on the services rendered as falling under the category of Authorised Service Station. Thus, the adjudicating authority confirmed th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10,14,593/- 2. Testing Inspection and Certification Service (Prior to 18.04.2006, 2006-07 & 2007-08) TUV Sud Automotive Lotus Car 24,94,822/- 3,07,710/- 3. Product Development Expenditure (2006-07 & 2007-08) Paul Sachweizer Aria Group Ugolini Design 1,07,73,136/- 13,30,315/- 4. Product Development Expenditure (2006-07) - Amount provided for in the books as payable but reversed since amount not payable - No consideration Paul Sachweizer 5,85,192/- 71,628/- 27,24,246/- 2.1 As regarding legal service, learned counsel submitted that it was brought under the taxable category only with effect from 1.9.2009 and since the appellant had a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....received in India only when it is performed in India. Since these testing inspection and certification service was performed outside India, the said service is not received in India and Section 66A is not attracted. He further submitted that Product Development Expenditure is not covered under any of the taxable service in Section 65(105) of the Act. Hence, Section 66A is not attracted and no consideration was paid or payable and this aspect is also accepted in the impugned order. 2.3 As regarding the demand of service tax against Authorised Service Station, learned counsel drew our attention to the Circular No.699/15/2003-CX dated 05.03.2003 wherein "It is clarified that as per Section 65(8) of Finance Act, 1994, "Authorised Service Sta....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndertook the servicing of vehicles manufactured by the other manufacturers. The Revenue entertained a view that they were liable to pay service tax in respect of such servicing of vehicles i.e. other than the vehicle of General Motors. Accordingly, proceedings were initiated against them by way of issuance of show cause notices which demanded the payment of service tax of Rs. 50,010/- Rs. 94,463/- and Rs. 35,995/-. xxxx 7. As is seen from the above definition of taxable service, the same is required to be provided by an "authorized service station". To find out who is authorized service station, I look into the definition of the same as appearing under section 65(9) of the Act. For the purpose of ready reference, the same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Finance Act. The Revenue's contention is the service station may be authorized by any manufacturer and services provided by them in respect of the vehicle manufactured by other manufacturers for which it will not be authorized are to be held as taxable services, cannot be accepted, in view of the specific definition of the authorised service station in terms of section 65(9) ibid." 2.4. The learned counsel further submits that the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation is unsustainable. Learned counsel relied on the decisions of Continental Foundation Joint Venture vs. CCE: 2007 (216) ELT 177 (SC) and Jaiprakash Industries Ltd. vs. CCE: 2002 (146) ELT 481 (SC) in this regard. The learned counsel further submits th....