TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 638
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 the demand for the period from 2005-2007 unde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... (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 availed the service before 1.9.2009, appellant is not liable to pay service tax. In this regard, the learned....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed. 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 Station" means any service station, or centre, authorised by any motor vehicle manufacturer, to carry out any service or repair of any motor car or two wheeled motor vehicle manufactured by such manufacturer. As per S....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eneral 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 is reproduced below :- "authorized service station" means any service, or centre, authorized by any motor vehicle manufacturer, to carry out any [service, repair, reconditioning or restoration] of any motor car, light motor vehicle o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble 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 that even if the appellant had paid service tax under RCM, appellant was entitled to claim CENVAT credit of entire amount and therefore, there will be revenue neutrality situation. Following the ratio of the decision in the case of Asmitha Microfin Ltd.....